RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u

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

pc:
> a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: 
> 
>   I suggest that you send to the list a new summary containing nothing 
>   but the rules you think should be given a try. And give your proposal 
>   a name. 
> 
> The full monty version: put a ce'u in the first free place (place not 
> occupied by a content expression -- this can always be the first place by 
> using SE or FA) and in every other place where {ce'u} is intended, if any. 
> 
> Abbreviated version.  If there are only one or two {ce'u} make the first 
> place one of them and then omit the {ce'u}, put the other one in 
> where wanted. 
> If there are more than two {ce'u} but not all places are {ce'u}, make the 
> first place {zo'e} and put {zo'e} wherever they are required. 
> {du'u} has no {ce'u} implied or overt.  All {ce'u}, write 'em all in. 

I still find this formulation too vague to be sure what you intend by it,
and I can't see any basis for your claim that your proposal is the one
that minimizes the need for overt ce'u in cases where omitted ce'u isn't 
simply glorked.

Also, it is not always possible to arrange things so that ce'u is
x1 of the main bridi (e.g. when ce'u is within an abstraction). And even 
when it is possible, it could be cumbersome (e.g. when one would
normally say "le broda be le brode be ce'u").

But I think we also agreed that these rules aren't worth the trouble,
so there's no point answering my objections unless you do believe your
proposal to still be worth discussing.

--And.