In a message dated 10/1/2001 12:57:14 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
Some examples of what I had in mind, as instances of established principles Not a problem. All the cases so far are subordinate and I make no claims that they make sense of any kind unsubordinated. But you know that.
This is not a generally accepted principle and is demonstably false in many cases: da broda le brode, mi senva le melba, etc.
Both halves of this are suspect {la djan djuno le du'u la bil klama} it does not appear that {la bil} is on the same bridi level as {le du'u la bil klama} within which it lies nor do I see how to paraphrase it out except by external identification, leaving the identified form still subordinated. So, I don't see myself as threatening any of these principles, they are dead already. <Clearly the lambda notion does not ahve the same #authoritative force as citations from the Refgram. I agree with the last sentence. Those of us involved in the inception of {ce'u} (which includes you & me) know perfectly well what it was intended to do. We don't really need to scrutinize the Book or the Mahoste glosses. This is not to say that {ce'u} is well-defined or that you are wrong to pursue your indagations into the further properties of {ce'u}.> Well, my memory is probably not so good as yours, but I took the lambdatalk seriously and have used it as a guideline from time to time, though not too thoroughly until recently. I'm going to drop it for a while until I can restore it in full use by justifying its general application. <It's quite possible -- for all that I know (i.e. in this case, nothing) -- that {le mamta be [lambda-variable]} makes perfect logical sense in main clauses. But that does not mean that {le mamta be ce'u} is viable, and I have previously stated some of the linguistic problems with it.> So problems you have with it linguistically, I suppose. Linguistically per se there don't seem to be any. <It's quite possible -- for all that I know (i.e. in this case, nothing) -- that {le mamta be [lambda-variable]} makes perfect logical sense in main clauses. But that does not mean that {le mamta be ce'u} is viable, and I have previously stated some of the linguistic problems with it.> I think we are both getting a bit annoyed by what seems to each of us atendency on the other's part to go off in obscurantist and shifting bloviation rather than simply answering fundamental questions. I think that, in so far as i have done what you take to be that, it is merely a matter of not being able to write very clear sentences even when things are very clear in my head. I suspect you ahve the same problem. So,rather than continuing this discussion (which has gone round Brown's barn at least three times now wihtout any visible progress) we retire to get a good short-sentence exposition of just what indirect questions and {ce'u} doon our repsective theories, with step by step explanations of the meaningsof each phase of the game. If you are like me, you think that you have done this time and again, but Ican assure that you have not, at least not in a way that came to me as coherent or consistent or even to the point (and I imagine you have the same assurance for me). May be it would help to have a third party (xorxes? cowan -- who has avoided this discussion like the plague?) suggest a set of questions to be answered and a format for answering that would draw us into simple speech (and perhaps a bit more honesty too). |