Subject: Re: [lojban] si'o

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 03:28:28 -0400

At 08:01 PM 8/23/01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>{si'o} in the list and what little there is in the Book looks to be redundant
>for a relativized {ka} on the one hand and for something totally outside that
>range on the other. It is admittedly a bit hard to relativize {ka} as a
>predicate (damn, I miss the real and useful {me}),

When we went along with TLI on the change in me, we had determined that 
there was an easy alternate way to do the old me. Why is it unsatisfactory?

As for ka, I am more than ever inclined to agree with xorxes formulation of 
his usage. I suspect that the times when my "every empty place is a ce'u" 
apply will not generally be places where we have sumti "le ka broda" linked 
to other sumti, but rather in bare predicate "ka broda".

For the most part, I am agreeing with you that there is a tempest in a 
teapot trying to find a solution when we aren't all that much in agreement 
as to what the problem is (or maybe even whether there is a problem). (I 
see that Nick finds it a problem, since he's trying to write a book, but 
his problem is getting mixed up with And's proposals and a whole bunch of 
other stuff that really doesn't need to be decided in order to write the 
book (if indeed it is something that can be decided at all).

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org