RE: [lojban] A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o

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

pc:
>   a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
>   > > There indeed must be a way for a bridi to function as a sumti (tho it's
>   > > unclear to me why there must be a way for a bridi to function as a
>   > > selbri, which is what NU gives us), but the only NU that is
indispensible
>   > > is du'u kei be zi'o. All other NU could be replaced by other selbri
>   > > with a du'u kei be zi'o sumti.
>   >
>   > A mysterious paragraph. Are you sure of it?
>
>   Yes. I can't see any snages.
>
> How does it work? What, for example, replaces {ni} or (this is
> apparently crucial) {si'o}?  I think a chart for all the  NU is called for.

All NU construct a predicate based on a bridi. The general strategy of
paraphrasing NU-lessly is to express that bridi as a lodu'u sumti that
is a sumti of a selbri synonymous with the NU.

ni1 = x1 is the degree to which x2* is the case; x1 is the degree to which
the world would have to change for x2 to not be the case

ni2 = lo du'u broda BAI ma kau [where BAI is the amount BAI]

si'o1 = x1 has the idea of x2* being the case

[I don't know quite what you think si'o should mean, so read that as an
indication of a paraphrase strategy only]

x2* is what could be filled by tu'odu'u kei (be zi'o).

I could try to assemble a chart of all such paraphrases, but in a sense
any decent definition of a NU's semantics is going to be tantamount to
one of these paraphrases.

--And.