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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:38:23 EDT

In a message dated 8/28/2001 1:47:09 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> la'e zo klama = le si'o klama?
> 
le si'o klama be ma

<a. Always write ce'u, and never in a filled place.
   i. ce'u makes sense in li'i as well as du'u and ka.>

I am unsure about the claim about {li'i}; what would {li'i ce'u prami} be? I 
don't see lambdas floating about in experiences.  
How can you (physically, never mind grammatically) write a {ce'u} in a filled 
space? But the idea is to reduce the number you have to write, so rule a 
looks wrong.

<b. ka and du'u are interchangeable if there is at least one ce'u. ka
expects at least one ce'u, du'u expects 0 or more.>
It is more efficient to maintain the status quo ante: {du'u} for no {ce'u}, 
{ka} for one or more. It is occasionally useful to spell out the other 
cases, of course, but not as a general rule.

<d. si'o implicitly fills up all the places with ce'u. But outside of
si'o, all empty places are zo'e.>
Well, I don't believe that {si'o} is in this mess, but if it were, that would 
be the way to go, using explicit {zo'e} to get back to fewer {ce'u}

<c. In kambroda lujvo, the ce'u is in the first place. I don't know how to
lujvoize ka ce'u broda ce'u.>

Well, the nice thing about lujvo is that you get to pick what the places are. 
And there are devices for calling attention to special uses of various 
places. As a general rule, the convention sounds right though (the simplest 
case of abbreviation).

<2 Reading
a. Understand that the older texts may have implicit ce'u floating about,
including in places that are already filled! You're on your own, context
is your guide.>

The working assumption is that old {ka}s meant to have {ce'u} in the first 
free space and maybe (but rarely) elsewhere. That is the advantage of the 
suggested abbreviation scheme.

Am I still automatically excluded from your purview? (if so will someone else 
slip this on to xod)