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

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:14:16 +0100

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.

D. Nor does Rule 2 have to be relied on that much, because {ka ce'u zo'e
zo'e zo'e zo'e klama} = {lo'e klama}. And even

ko'a ce ko'e simxu loi ka (ce'u) (ce'u) prami

could be rendered by something like

ko'a ce ko'e simxu lo'e prami be (tu'a) ce'u

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.

--And.