From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 29 13:46:18 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 20:46:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 15165 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 20:34:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:25 -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 <20010829203419.CAJX23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:34:19 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:33:33 +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" Nick: > For clarification, and because I tend to get caught in my own vocab: By > Free {ka}, I mean a {ka} clause which may well contain {ce'u}, but where > that {ce'u} is not necessarily filled in by any sumti in the bridi, or > required by the gismu list. Thus, {mi sisku leka prami} is bounded-ka: the > semantics of {sisku} requires {ka}. And {mi mansa do leka prami} is > bounded-ka: the {ce'u} in the {ka}-clause is understood as filled in by the > x1 of {mansa}. But {mi tavla leka prami} is Free-ka: the {ka}-clause is > being treated like any {nu}-clause, or any {da}, or anything at all you can > talk about. It's ce'u isn't being filled in, nor especially being > concentrated on. {ka} is (nowadays) intrinsically free, I feel, and the expropriation of ka for bound-ka contexts should not affect our understanding of the rules and conventions that pertain to ka. And bound-ka contexts should be thought carefully about, to see to what extent the use of ka is a quasi syntactic kludge [I can't remember the word for something less kludgey than a kludge, but that's what I mean here]. Take mansa: x1 satisfies evaluator x2 in property (ka)/state x3 For starters there's something wrong if x3 can be a property *or* a state. Second, if x1 has to be an argument within the x3, why is this not just a sumti raising, such that the underlying satisfier is the x3? If it is just a sumti raising, then what is called for is not a ka plus ce'u but a nu plus leno'a: not: mi mansa do loi ka ce'u lojbo but: mi mansa do loi nu leno'a lojbo Or so I think today, at any rate. --And.