selbri vs. bridi (was: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u)

["Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la pycyn. cusku di'e

> <I want to be able to say things like:
>
> ti ta frica le ka le mamta be ce'u cu klama makau
> This one and that one differ in where their mothers go.
>
> But obviously functions don't go anywhere. I want ce'u to
> always be an argument of ka.>
>
> Sorry, even without me this won't fly the way you want: {ce'u} is
minimal
> scope, so doesn't go beyond {le mamta be...} anyhow.  For this you
need {le
> ka ce'u goi cy zo'u
> le mamta be cy ...}.  So my interpretation of {le mamta be ce'u}
isn't your
> problem. (See And's discussion of the scope of {ce'u} a few days
ago)

Does "ce'u" bind to the selbri closest to it or does it have to be an
entire bridi? Similarly is "mi viska le prami be le nei" "I see the
one who loves himself" or "I see the one who loves me"? At least with
"nei", I think it acts with the bridi, and thus the second is correct.
To get the second you could create a new bridi: "mi viska ko'a poi
ke'a prami le nei". Likewise, I think, with "ce'u". A function which
returns sumti instead of bridi may be useful, but I don't think I've
yet seen an example where it's necessary, or even more elegant, so I
don't see a reason to tie up the weird looking "le mamta be ce'u",
etc., for that purpose.

At any rate, perhaps we could use something like "da poi makau mamta
ce'u" for that purpose (functions to sumti) if it turns out to be
necessary, and then we wouldn't have to mess with the scope of "ce'u".

mu'o mi'e .adam.