RE: [lojban] the set of answers

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

pc:
> a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: 
> 
>   But given that ce'u in free ka is relatively clearly defined, and that 
>   ka/ce'u are only defined as free, the bound ka usage being something 
>   of a groping in the dark, bound ka should not have first claim on 
>   ce'u, however much more frequently needed bound ka is than free ka. 
>   So instead you should be looking for an alternative to ce'u -- an 
>   experimental cmavo, if necessary. 
> 
> Bound ka is just free ka where we are uninterested in the whole range of 
> value, but focused on a few cases.  Since we are only comparing W and Jeb 
> with respect to some function, we only care about what the value of the 
> function is for them as arguments.  But the whole function is involved 
> (though, of course, we could do with a fucntion whose range is restricted to 
> W and Jeb, but that would take more time than its worth, since it would ahve 
> to agree with the big function for these value anyhow).  so {ka ... ce'u} is 
> correct and adequate for teh purpose, even though we ignore most of its 
> content. 

Maybe, but in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standard
usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami Y}.
X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in our
exsmples??) and Y ranges freely. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is
underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u. So
although I could accept your story that X is a contextually restricted
ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u in the
same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical form). Maybe
something like

  la dybiyb la tcelsik frica lo du'u ce'u goi fo'o zo'u ce'u -extension
  lo du'u ce'u mamta fo'o

which suggestion is made largely fumbling in the dark.

--And.