Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:32:42 EDT

In a message dated 8/29/2001 3:48:18 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> x1 satisfies evaluator x2 in property (ka)/state x3 
> 
> For starters there's something wrong if x3 can be a property *or* a
> 

Not obviously: it may make a diffference whether he IS something or CAN DO 
something, for example.

<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:>

Or a {du'u} plus {le no'a}. Sounds right.