Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

[pycyn@aol.com]

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.

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.

Still a good point, but now one easily solved.  We give {ce'u} the subscripting pattern of one of those annoying backcounting (upcounting) anaphora, so that it is marked for depth -- or rather bouyance.  ^xFf<g<x>> is {ce'u xire}, F^xf<g<x>> is {ce'u xipa} and
Ff<^xg<x>> is just {ce'u}.  All desiderata restored and much more tidily (and {goi cy} can go in anyhwere to deal wiht coreference).