Re: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/6/2001 8:00:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:

When others want to say {X se li'i ce'u broda}, I want it to be {X se li'i
X broda}. In the most generalizable solution, the second X would be an
anaphor whose antecedent/binder is the first X, the experiencer. I couldn't
find any anaphor that would do the job, so proposed {no'au}, which works
like no'a but applies to all types of phrase, not just bridi.

Now, can X have an experience of brodaing in general, not of something
brodaing.  I guess I don't think so and so find {li'i ce'u broda} not to make
sense. Must that something be X?  Clearly not, but that is an especially
common case, I would think.  So the first temptation is surely to leave the
first place of {broda} bare in that case -- and this is almost certainly what
happened in the little bit of use {li'i} has gotten over the years.  Popping
that up the {ce'u}, on the analogy of {ka}, or to {zo'e}, on the analogy of
{du'u}, seem equally misguided.  Being explicit is, we now know from the
toehr cases, the best policy, so we need "X" there or its anaphor.  Would
{ri} worik in most cases?  Creating a new class of this situation (are there
going to be others?) seems excessive.