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

[Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:15:29PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> I like it! That would also explain what the heck {si'o}
> means, which I never really understood. My only minor qualm
> is with this:
> 
> >5. In ka abstractions that contain no overt ce'u, exactly one elided sumti
> >is interpreted as ce'u and the rest are interpreted as zo'e.
> 
> I would also temper it down here to "exactly one unless overridden
> by strong contextual factors", basically to cover the x2 of
> simxu. I still want to be able to say {simxu le ka darxi}
> for example.

With that change, I agree with the proposal. Very cool.
-- 
Rob Speer