From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 29 16:53:25 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 23:53:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 86078 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 23:52:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 23:52:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 23:52:29 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.6]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010829235227.GKCB20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:52:27 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:51:35 +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: <20010829152136.B740@twcny.rr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Rob: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 02:09:27PM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > unfortunately that doesn't tell us much. If people understood when they > > need ce'u and if they never elided it, then you would have seen it. And > > in discussions of, say, definitional issues (e.g. "Is daterape rape?") > > you'd get a lot of all-ce'us. > > I think the way to say that would be to say > {xu du la'ezo -daterape la'ezo -rape} a famous malglico gotcha -- it shd be xu la'e zo daterape me la'e zo -rape And yes, though I think that is the easiest way to do things, it remains the case that you can say (assuming rape is a binary relation) xu tu'o ka ce'u -daterape ce'u klesi tu'o ka ce'u -rape ce'u xu tu'o si'o -daterape kei klesi tu'o si'o -rape or, in an intriguing novel (but probably bad) usage I haven't considered before: xu ro ka ce'u -daterape ce'u ka ce'u -rape ce'u xu ro si'o -daterape kei si'o -rape > and avoid ce'u altogether. Just because we've been talking about ce'u a lot > doesn't mean you have to use it. > > In other words, I think la'ezo already does what the ka/du'u/si'o > proposal says lesi'o should do. Only in cases where all sumti are ce'u. Compare si'o re da tuple = si'o re da tuple ce'u = twoleggedness --And.