From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 29 16:53:25 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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 <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:52:27 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:51:35 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMIEEFEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

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.