Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du'u

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

Xorxes:
#la and cusku di'e
#
#>The convention would be:
#>
#>1. inside ka: fill every logically-present but syntactically absent place 
#>with ce'u
#
#I don't like this at all. What is a "logically-present" place?
#I want {le ka ce'u dunda} to be the property of being a giver,
#and {le ka dunda ce'u} the property of being a gift.

But then to talk about (platonic) Going, you'd have to have
ce'u ce'u ce'u ce;u ce'u klama, which is very longwinded.

OTOH, by my excellent scheme:

ka prami = Love
ka zo'e prami (ce'u) = du'u (zo'e) prami ce'u = belovedness
ka (ce'u) prami zo'e = du'u ce'u prami (zo'e) = loverhood

So you can have things exactly as you want them, so long
as you use du'u rather than ka.

As for what is a logically present place, this issue exists
independently of ce'u, in regard to zo'e. I'd take a logically
present but syntactically absent place to be an empty
untagged sumti place.

>poi'i [[ [NU] ] x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds ke'a 
>within the abstraction.

Would it be equivalent to {du da poi}?

Yes, AFAICS.

--And.