Subject: Re: [lojban] The Knights who forgot to say "ni!"

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:51:40 EDT

In a message dated 8/28/2001 4:12:08 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.