From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 29 16:23:36 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 23:23:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 99075 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 23:23:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 23:23:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.36) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 23:23:34 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:23:34 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.66 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:23:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.66] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:23:34 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2001 23:23:34.0549 (UTC) FILETIME=[9F8A2450:01C130E1] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >Nick: > > 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. I would have said {ka} is almost exclusively used in Nick's bound contexts: {ti mutce le ka bebna}, {ta tu frica le ka barda}, {ti mi xajmi le ka xunre}, and so on. I can't think of any use of free-ka outside of discussions about language. >x1 satisfies evaluator x2 in property (ka)/state x3 > >For starters there's something wrong if x3 can be a property *or* a >state. There's plenty of these ambiguous definitions in the gi'uste. I suppose x3 is either a property of x1, or an event for which x1 is responsible. >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? The same could be said of any selbri with a ka-place. {ta mutce le ka barda} could be thought as {le nu ta barda cu mutce zi'o}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp