In a message dated 8/28/2001 11:40:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
rob@twcny.rr.com writes:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 08:51:39PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> Simple, but unreliable ("where context indisputably demands" is going to
take
> in a lot of cases for some folk, none for others). So use the rule that
> covers all the cases -- I've offered two that don't use up {si'o} or
anything
> else and rarely require more than three or four syllables, regardless how
> many {ce'u} are needed. And agree with the first clause of yours (as it
must
> to meet the problems conditions). Now, what is wrong with these
proposals,
> especially the second?
In recent Lojban text, people have been using {ka ce'u klama} to make it
entirely clear. There was an assumption that if you specify a ce'u, you
don't
need any interpretive rules to decide where the ce'u goes. The interpretive
conventions have been about what to do _in the absence of ce'u_.
Exactly so. So, if you use {ce'u} wherever you intend one, then you have no
need for conventions -- provided there are no conventions around that get in
the way. So, I take this as an objection to the "all {ce'u}" convention at
the end of my summary. OK, drop that. Then your claim is perfectly clear.
In fact that does help warn people that you are not using a convention,
probably also a good thing to do.
Your idea points at them and says "Nope, you're wrong. {ka ce'u klama}
actually
means {ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u}". And for what benefit? Just to
make
it really easy to have an all-ce'u bridi, which I still haven't seen a
plausible use for besides talking about the bridi itself. (For which I would
prefer {la'e zo klama}).
IF you use the conventions. I like {la'e zo klama} better, too, but it is
not a predicate, as {ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u} is. That needs fixing
(preferably not wiht {me}).
And the idea of a ce'u that you _have_ to elide is just absurd.
{ka klama} = {ka ce'u klama}
{ka ce'u klama} = {ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u}
If you mean {ka ce'u klama}, you can't say it, and if you say it, you don't
mean it. How does this make anything clearer?
Dropping the full {ce'u} proposal (I thought it was kinda cute, but I was
clearly wrong, regardless of the parameters of the task), that initial {ce'u}
becomes a warning that you are not using the convention and thus holds you to
every {ce'u} you say and not one more.
Incidentally, since you disagree with the idea of context demanding a
two-{ce'u} bridi, how would you state one under your proposal? If you state
both {ce'u}s, all the other places get {ce'u}-d as well.
{ka broda fe ce'u}
|