Re: [lojban] What place of nesting bridi {ce'u} refers to?

[la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 12:15:29 AM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
> Am 01.10.2012 22:04, schrieb Arnt Richard Johansen:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:56:59AM -0700, la gleki wrote:
> >
> >> These examples are pretty clear. No ambiguity. Now let's open Chapter 11.4
> >> http://dag.github.com/cll/11/4/
> >>
> >> 4.9)   la djan. cu zmadu la djordj. le ka mi prami ce'u
> >>         John exceeds George in-the property-of (I love X).
> >>
> >> This is something very strange.
> >> Let's imagine that I'm a boy and I meet a girl. I tell her
> >>
> >> {do melbi mi lo ka ce'u clani}
> >>
> >> Does {ce'u} refer to {do} or {mi}?
> > Neither. {ce'u} does not refer to anything, and that's sort of the whole point. The clause refers to a “property” of being tall *in the abstract*, not that of someone in particular being tall.
>
> Yes, but the ce'u place gets filled later by one of the sumti in the 
> parent bridi, and that is what the question was about.
>
> > * lo ka mi clani
> >    my height
> >
> > * lo ka do clani
> >    your height
> >
> > * lo ka lo penbi cu clani
> >    a pen being long
>
> These are very non-standard, and probably many would call them 
> incorrect. The only way I can see to make these work is to say that "lo 
> ka mi clani" is to be interpreted as "lo ka mi no'u ce'u clani", or else 
> the "ce'u" would end up in a different sumti place and the meaning would 
> change drastically.
>
>
> > * lo ka clani
> >    being long (OR being a dimension of length OR being a standard of length)
>
> Right, but much more than with "ke'a", where this is handled much more 
> loosely, the convention is that "ce'u" fills the first empty slot.

So if there are no {ce'u}  specified we must understand it as the first and only the first slot is filled with omitted {ce'u}. If two or more of the slots of the  nested brivla are filled we must specify all of them (like in {mi e do simxu lo ka ce'u ce'u prami}), right?

That would make sense however this is something that must be included into CLL 2.0.

IMO {ce'u}-izing gimste is also a must. 

btw, dont you think that we can use {ce'u} in {mi djica lo ka/nu *ce'u* citka lo plise} instead of {vo'a/mi}?

> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>
> -- 
> pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo
>
> doị mèlbi mlenì'u
>     .i do càtlu ki'u
> ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
>     .i do tìnsa càrmi
> gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
>     .i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ZcTm9MnARpAJ.
 
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.