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

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/8/2001 4:44:52 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
(I think this is actually xod, but I've lost count in the many layers of
pointies)

> In claiming {li'i klama} has a meaning which is not one of {li'i klama FA
> ce'u}, you're claiming that "I experienced going (klama), but I wasn't the
> goer, nor the origin, nor the destination, the vehicle, or the route".
> What exactly are you experiencing then?

I am worried about {li'i klama FA ce'u} since I can't figure out what it
means.  It should be a function that gives experiences when I fill in an
appropriate FA and a sumti for {ce'u}.  It is pretty clearly not an
experience itself, since I don't think anyone has experiences that are
incomplete in this way, begging for a goer/destination/origin/ route.  
Alternatively, it is a shorthand for {ro da...li'i klama FA da}, but then the
{ce'u} is doubly misleading: it satands for a universal quantified sumti, not
a gap, and it claims that such experiences are available for everything (of
some contextually defined sort)  when generally they are not (most things
aren't goers or destinations or origins and certainly not routes).  And, of
course, reading it for {li'i klama} goes against a consensus that all {ce'u}
be shown.  So {li'i klama} seems to be {li'i zo'e klama zo'e zo'e zo'e} and
introducing {ceu} a mistake.