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

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

Xod:
> > > I see what you're saying. But the li'i needs a focus. Are you suggesting
> > > we bust out yet another cmavo rather than use ce'u in li'i?
> >
> > The li'i doesn't always need a focus: {le li'i da carvi kei be mi} =
> > my experience of it raining.
> 
> How can you experience it raining? Are you experiencing {li'i ce'u carvi},
> being rain? Or being rained upon (li'i carvi ce'u}? Or being a something
> cloud-like, that generates rain {li'i carvi fi ce'u}? Pissing out of a
> window is part of the carvi experience just as much as getting dripped on
> from an air conditioner. Without ce'u, only flimsy contextual clues
> provide the data.

You may be right. But we can certainly say {mi lifri lo nu da carvi},
without specifying the exact way I was involved in or impinged on by
it raining. And for many experiences it's hard to be precise: e.g.
my experiences of the Northern Ireland conflict -- which are largely
indirect but very multifarious and multitudinous.

>  So "my experience of me belching" should
> > be {le li'i mi kafke kei be mi}, not {le li'i ce'u kafke kei be mi}.
> 
> Next you'll declare the second mi redundant and try to get away with {li'i
> mi kafke}. 

No, not at all. I don't deny that there must be an experiencer. I just
strongly question whether the experiencer must be involved in the
experience bridi.

--And.