Re: noxemol ce'u

[jjllambias@hotmail.com]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> > Presumably you will allow {la dubia frica la tclsis ce'u}
> > where I would want {la dubias frica le tclsis le ka ce'u du 
makau}?
> 
> Why that presumption?  I am not sure. 

It's the natural extension of this abuse of notation: using 
ce'u itself for the identity function.

> <Or will you insist on using 
> {le du be ce'u} there? Is {ce'u} by itself a function or does 
> it depend on {le} to turn it into one?>
> Well, the don't differ in {le du be ce'u}, since each is self 
identical and 
> that function of course is the identity function -- x in, x out. 

But the value of the function will be different for each!
How is this different from the {le mamta be ce'u} case?
In both cases there is one function wich gives different values
for each of them as argument. They no doubt differ in 
{le ka makau du ce'u}, in "who they are".

> As to the second question, neither: {ce'u} 
> creaes a function of the appropriate sort (one from arguments to 
whatever the 
> matrix is with a regular sumti) out of whatever it is stuck into as 
a sumti. 

Except where the matrix is the minimal sumti place itself? Why 
can't ce'u stand for the identity function?

> <In English you can say: "I told him the place" or "I told him 
> what the place is". I'm glad we agree (I hope) that in Lojban
> you can say {mi jungau ko'a le du'u makau stuzi}, but you 
> can't say {mi jungau ko'a le stuzi}. Not everyone agrees with
> this, some people are quite happy to mimic English here.>
> 
> Yes, but I take that to be a feature of {djuno}, not of functions.

I don't think this is only about {djuno}. Is there any predicate
at all that will accept both {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}
indifferently? 

> Note, there is not {ce'u} function in any case, so not 
> relevant to the present discussion.

You really don't see any parallel between the {le broda}:
{le du'u makau broda} pair and the {le broda be ce'u}:{le du'u 
makau broda ce'u} one?

mu'o mi'e xorxes