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

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

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >Nick:
> > > And {mi mansa do leka prami} is
> > > bounded-ka: the {ce'u} in the {ka}-clause is understood as filled in by 
> >the
> > > x1 of {mansa}. But {mi tavla leka prami} is Free-ka: the {ka}-clause is
> > > being treated like any {nu}-clause, or any {da}, or anything at all you 
> >can
> > > talk about. It's ce'u isn't being filled in, nor especially being
> > > concentrated on.
> >
> >{ka} is (nowadays) intrinsically free, I feel, and the expropriation of ka
> >for bound-ka contexts should not affect our understanding of the rules
> >and conventions that pertain to ka.
> 
> I would have said {ka} is almost exclusively used in Nick's bound
> contexts: {ti mutce le ka bebna}, {ta tu frica le ka barda},
> {ti mi xajmi le ka xunre}, and so on. I can't think of any use
> of free-ka outside of discussions about language.

You're dead right. What I thinking of but totally failed to communicate
by "nowadays" was "post-Woldemarian era", i.e. with ka as defined and
exegetized by the Cowan.

So, usage is and always has been dominated by bound ka, but the
Woldemarian ka is free ka.
 
> >x1 satisfies evaluator x2 in property (ka)/state x3
> >
> >For starters there's something wrong if x3 can be a property *or* a
> >state.
> 
> There's plenty of these ambiguous definitions in the gi'uste.

I know. Awful. The gihuste could give a hardliner several score 
apoplexies.

> I suppose x3 is either a property of x1, or an event for which
> x1 is responsible.
> 
> >Second, if x1 has to be an argument within the x3, why is this
> >not just a sumti raising, such that the underlying satisfier is
> >the x3?
> 
> The same could be said of any selbri with a ka-place.
> {ta mutce le ka barda} could be thought as
> {le nu ta barda cu mutce zi'o}.

Exactly. I was just using mansa as an example, as Nick was.
So really bound ka ce'u is not a proper ka or a proper ce'u.
It's more like a nu le no'a.

--And.