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

[Nick NICHOLAS <nicholas@uci.edu>]

cu'u la xod.

>Are we then agreeing that ka fasnu = si'o fasnu?

Well, we were until pc came along. :-)

The answer was yes. Or at least: du'u, ka, and si'o are propositions,
mental abstractions:

*du'u with no ce'u by default (but you can still add
them in, right? I guess you can, but if you also keep ka in, I'd rather
see them added to ka by default)

*ka with one ce'u by default, and with at least one ce'u always

*si'o with all ce'u by default, which is how you speak of "the concept
'happy'" --- i.e. you are speaking *only* of the selbri, in and of itself,
with no arguments filled or even fillable.

If si'o is 'concept', I don't think pc's objection holds: a concept's as
much a dematerialised abstraction as du'u is.

The ma'oste says si'o is abstractor: idea/concept abstractor; x1 is x2's
concept of [bridi]. Doesn't say much, but I think this fits with And.

What does usage say? Dunno yet, but I'll say one thing: if si'o has
*never* been used with sumti --- if people say {le si'o xunre} and never
{le si'o mi xunre} --- then And is exactly right about it: the places of
a si'o abstraction are all ce'u, and thus unfillable.

Btw, pc, I normally don't hold with the "Lynch PC party", but you telling
us we're quibbling because we *don't* want to have to insert extraneous
{ce'u} and make using the language that much harder... well, it's not
constructive.

 --
==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==  ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing  {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
nicholas@uci.edu                   -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias