From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Aug 30 18:36:34 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 31 Aug 2001 01:36:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 72461 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 01:36:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 31 Aug 2001 01:36:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 01:36:33 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.56]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010831013630.FNCD15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 02:36:30 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:44:52 +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" Jorge: > 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. You're dead right. What I thinking of but totally failed to communicate by "nowadays" was "post-Woldemarian era", i.e. with ka as defined and exegetized by the Cowan. So, usage is and always has been dominated by bound ka, but the Woldemarian ka is free ka. > >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 know. Awful. The gihuste could give a hardliner several score apoplexies. > 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}. Exactly. I was just using mansa as an example, as Nick was. So really bound ka ce'u is not a proper ka or a proper ce'u. It's more like a nu le no'a. --And.