RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:

> pc:
> > The best meeting of the various desiderata for {ka} then seems to be:
> > all {zo'e} = {du'u} , 1 or 2 {ceu} use scheme 2 (first free space assumed
> > {ce'u}), 3 or 4 {ce'u} use scheme 5 (show all {zo'e}), all {cu'e} : {cu'e}
> > in exactly the first free space.
>
> This record was not a model of clarity, tho it may well have been
> exemplary in other respects. So can I try to outline what I take to
> be an explicit version of your scheme?
>
> 1. All empty sumti places within du'u fill with zo'e.
> 2. In ka abstractions, the first empty place fills with ce'u and the
>    rest fill with zo'e.
>    Exception (or generalization): where context indisputably demands
>    a ka abstraction expressing an n-adic relation, where the value of
>    n is certain, the first n empty places fill with ce'u and the rest
>    with zo'e.
> 3. EITHER (XOR):
>    3a. In a ka abstraction, if an overt ce'u fills the x1 then all
>        following empty places fill with ce'u.
>    XOR:
>    3b. In a ka abstraction, if a ce'u precedes the first empty place
>        then all following empty places fill with ce'u.
>
>
> Comments:
>
> A. Empty places and their sequence have to be defined as x1<x2<x3<x4<x5
>    (because I can't see any other way of defining them). This means
>    that {ka broda .... fa ko'a} will gardenpath people, because they'll
>    misparse as {ka ce'u broda}. There's probably no way round this; you
>    have to wait to the end of tbe clause to know where the ce'u and
>    zo'e go. Your only safe bet to avoid gardenpathing is to use overt
>    ce'u within du'u.
>
> B. Rules 2-3 raise further problems of specification:
>
>    i.  Does an empty place within a nonempty x1 precede an empty x2?
>
>    ii. If nonempty x3 precedes nonempty x2, does an empty place within
>        x3 precede an empty place within x2?
>
> C. {ka ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u klama} = {la'e zo klama}, so it may
>    be that Rule 3 doesn't have to be relied on that much.


la'e zo klama = le si'o klama?



>
> Conclusions:
>
> Either:
>
>   I. Revert to my du'u/ka/si'o proposal
>
> or:
>
>   II. a. Leave ka grungey, i.e. totally reliant on glorking.
>       b. To avoid relying on glorking, use du'u, lo'e and la'e zo.




Is this your I?

1. Writing
 a. Always write ce'u, and never in a filled place.
   i. ce'u makes sense in li'i as well as du'u and ka.
 b. ka and du'u are interchangeable if there is at least one ce'u. ka
expects at least one ce'u, du'u expects 0 or more.
 c. In kambroda lujvo, the ce'u is in the first place. I don't know how to
lujvoize ka ce'u broda ce'u.
 d. si'o implicitly fills up all the places with ce'u. But outside of
si'o, all empty places are zo'e.

2 Reading
 a. Understand that the older texts may have implicit ce'u floating about,
including in places that are already filled! You're on your own, context
is your guide.




-----
"It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution
never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object
of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every
shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously
occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of
manufactures."   --  Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950