[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u



In a message dated 10/1/2001 12:29:45 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


But something _is_ thrown out! We could no longer
use {le ka le mamta be ce'u cu melbi} for "the property
of having a beautiful mother". That's the main reason I
don't want to take {le mamta be ce'u} as a function.


Well, no one has used it yet, so it can't exactly be thrown out, not yet being in.  But moe to the point, we have a perfectly good way of saying it, so it is not lost -- and we gain a new thing we did not have before.  

<There's also the less important matter, but still significant,
that while you get ^xf(x), there's no equivalent way of
getting ^xf(g(x)).

It just wouldn't fit with the rest of the language if ce'u
had no prenex to hang from, and {le} does not provide one.>

Now, this is a genuine problem, since I don't see how to get {ce'u goi cy zo'u} in with {le}, either before or after, unless I mess a bit with relative clauses, which look suspicious.  Hmmmm