On 2 October 2012 01:26, la gleki
<gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
I believe that {ce'u no'u ko'a} is wrong. The bridi in which the property-abstraction appears provides the value for the ce'u-place. Personally filling a ce'u-place changes the abstraction type from ka to du'u.
> * 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}?
Sure, but what of wanting things that don't involve djica1 at all?
I've thought long and hard about this, as evidenced by the abstractions paper that I wrote on the wiki. In general, when an abstraction place doesn't make sense if you exclude the broda1 from it, then it requires ka.
*{.i mi kakne lo nu do citka lo plise} (example from an old mriste thread of mine)
is nonsense, which prompts me to believe that kakne2 is a ka or equivalent.
However {.i mi djica lo nu do klama lo zarci} makes perfect sense, even though the djica1 is not inside the djica2.
The gimste being more prescriptive about abstraction types would be great, but good luck finding enough people who support the cause of more rigid types. (AFAIK there are at most two or three, myself and probably you included.)
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o