From pycyn@aol.com Tue Aug 28 17:53:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 00:53:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 41376 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 00:51:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 00:51:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m07.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.162) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 00:51:46 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.94.1909992e (2172) for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:51:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <94.1909992e.28bd969c@aol.com> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:51:40 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_94.1909992e.28bd969c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_94.1909992e.28bd969c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/28/2001 4:12:08 PM Central Daylight Time, xod@sixgirls.org writes: > Excuse me if this completely obvious to most of you. > Well, I have trouble with the first line, that {ni} and {ka} are similar. What is the role of {ce'u} in {ni}, which is apparently a quantity and so a complete object, not a function and so incomplete. I can, in fact, imagine a functional sense of {ni} and {ce'u} may be a very efficient way to do that: ko'a frica ko'e le ni ce'u prami la meris. But that has to wait until we understand what is a good first argument for {ni prami}, which we don't really have yet. I thought that phantom {ce'u} disappeared in the absence of any explanation for how it interacted with the visible {mi}. Shifting the {mi} to {pe} or {be} hardly improves matters: {ka} isn't possessible like {si'o} -- and the {mi} would hardly have done that originally anyhow, nor does {p/be} work to instantiate a {ce'u}. So the point of all of this is lost at the moment. le kamprami be mi = le kamprami pe mi> OK, what place structure did you choose for {kamprami}? So that er can know what this is supposed to mean. Ditto. --part1_94.1909992e.28bd969c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/28/2001 4:12:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
xod@sixgirls.org writes:


Excuse me if this completely obvious to most of you.

Well, I have trouble with the first line, that {ni} and {ka} are similar.  
What is the role of {ce'u} in {ni}, which is apparently a quantity and so a
complete object, not a function and so incomplete.  I can, in fact, imagine a
functional sense of {ni} and {ce'u} may be a very efficient way to do that:
ko'a frica ko'e le ni ce'u prami la meris.
But that has to wait until we understand what is a good first argument for
{ni prami}, which we don't really have yet.

<le ka mi prami
my lovingness (phantom ce'u in prami1, none anywhere else)>

I thought that phantom {ce'u} disappeared in the absence of any explanation
for how it interacted with the visible {mi}.  Shifting the {mi} to {pe} or
{be} hardly improves matters: {ka} isn't possessible like {si'o} -- and the
{mi} would hardly have done that originally anyhow, nor does {p/be} work to
instantiate a {ce'u}.  So the point of all of this is lost at the moment.

<le ka mi prami --> le kamprami be mi = le kamprami pe mi>
OK, what place structure did you choose for {kamprami}? So that er can know
what this is supposed to mean.

<le nilprami pe mi>

Ditto.  





--part1_94.1909992e.28bd969c_boundary--