From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 29 13:45:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 20:45:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 79343 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 20:34:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:08 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.90.250]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010829203406.CAEO23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:34:06 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:33:19 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > <> 1. All empty sumti places within du'u fill with zo'e.> > > Thankfully this is something everybody agrees on, and it guarantees > that however messy ka is, there's an unambiguous way to say what we > want. > > We've never lacked that, as far as I can see. Before this debate began, rule 1 was NOT established or agreed on, and hence it was possible that an empty place could be filled with a ce'u. > What was lacking was a way to > say it reasonably briefly. I don't see how agreeing about {du'u} helps; > trying to do {ka} things with {du'u} is invariably the least efficient way of > doing it (well, parallel to your {si'o}) The debate began with me & xod discussing problems of ambiguity and gardenpathing, and then hotted up when Nick raised the issue of how ce'uless ka are interpreted. Brevity issues arose only later. > it just doesn't seem worth the candle. The conventions are just more > trouble than they're worth.> > > Probably, but in this case, clarity required this move to head off another of > your remarks earlier that we might delay saying what was going on until the > end: set a tricky question, et a tricky answe, neither of which would > ordinarily be needed. > > of the abstraction it belongs to, and then referring to it anaphorically. > Plus the usual default rule that says that things not in prenexes go > to the prenex of the localmost bridi.> > > This looks reasonable, especially since it seems likely that we would > eventually get cases where the {ce'u} inside inner phrases were not relevant > to the outer ones. Generally, I think the conventions for those innerphrases > have to be the ones appror\priate to their own types, not to the overarching > type. I agree. Do remember that not all innerphrases are abstractions, though; they can be complex sumti. > ce'u", say.> > And I meant linear order, too; that was why I changed from place to space, > remember. I understand. I still think it's horrendous, tho. > need gadri for typical things, because we have the brivla fadni to do that > job. The other plausible interpretation is that it's the archetype, and > this seems to be the intension, which is then the same thing as a ce'u > abstraction.> > > We have brivla for most types of gadri and other devices as well (as I think > you have been busily demonstrating on a variety of other threads), but it is > still handy to have the gadri for practical purposes. I admit that I am not > too clear on the differences among the typical, the stereotypical and the > archetypal, and I know the argument that the archetypal man is not a man at > all (thanx, Big A), but it seems that if it is a {ka} then use {ka} (and > maybe {si'o} for the stereotypical?). This really belongs in a different thread about lo'e, but it does seem to me that for any construct that focuses on x1, the proper way to handle it is using our x1-focusing construction, viz. gadri + sumti-tail. > on the list, and is guided by reasoned conclusions arrived at in those > discussions, rather than by vague hunches about what things are supposed > to mean, based on their one-word English glosses in the mahoste.> > > One possible (but slightly loaded) definition, I suppose. It does not > obviously apply in this case, though, so I withdraw the "Andban" and stick > with "Nalgol," a word with a nice long history in the community. What is Nalgol? --And.