| In a message dated 8/29/2001 8:15:24 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: <> 1. All empty sumti places within du'u fill with zo'e.> Thankfully this is something everybody agrees on, and it guarantees We've never lacked that, as far as I can see. What was lacking was a way to say it reasonably briefly. I don't see how agreeing about {du'u} helps; trying to do {ka} things with {du'u} is invariably the least efficient way of doing it (well, parallel to your {si'o}) <When we get to the stage of making ordinarily flexible word order rigig, it just doesn't seem worth the candle. The conventions are just more trouble than they're worth.> Probably, but in this case, clarity required this move to head off another of your remarks earlier that we might delay saying what was going on untilthe end: set a tricky question, et a tricky answe, neither of which would ordinarily be needed. <disambiguation in such cases can be done by putting ce'u in the prenex of the abstraction it belongs to, and then referring to it anaphorically. Plus the usual default rule that says that things not in prenexes go to the prenex of the localmost bridi.> This looks reasonable, especially since it seems likely that we would eventually get cases where the {ce'u} inside inner phrases were not relevant to the outer ones. Generally, I think the conventions for those innerphrases have to be the ones appror\priate to their own types, not to the overarching type. <I meant "linearly precedes". "klama fi lo tcadu be vi ce'u fe lo tcadu be vi ce'u", say.> And I meant linear order, too; that was why I changed from place to space, remember. <Xorxes, not xod. Once John's elephant is up and running it will be easier to keep track of this sort of thing.> Thank you. The miles of indented quotes that people use tend to make attribution a little hard to work out sometimes. <Well, you can read the relevant discussion, but the essence is thatwe don't need gadri for typical things, because we have the brivla fadni to do that job. The other plausible interpretation is that it's the archetype, and this seems to be the intension, which is then the same thing as a ce'u abstraction.> We have brivla for most types of gadri and other devices as well (as I think you have been busily demonstrating on a variety of other threads), but it is still handy to have the gadri for practical purposes. I admit that I am not too clear on the differences among the typical, the stereotypical and the archetypal, and I know the argument that the archetypal man is not a man at all (thanx, Big A), but it seems that if it is a {ka} then use {ka} (and maybe {si'o} for the stereotypical?). <Andban = the Lojban of somebody who pays heed to the reasoned discussion on the list, and is guided by reasoned conclusions arrived at in those discussions, rather than by vague hunches about what things are supposed to mean, based on their one-word English glosses in the mahoste.> One possible (but slightly loaded) definition, I suppose. It doesnot obviously apply in this case, though, so I withdraw the "Andban" and stick with "Nalgol," a word with a nice long history in the community. |