Subject: Re: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:41:21 EDT

In a message dated 8/31/2001 12:08:25 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> ., <le si'o ce'u broda be 
> > mi> = <le du'u mi broda> (different "quotes" since the stuff inside is 
> not 
> > obviously Lojban). 
> 
> I have not said anything even remotely like this, unless by some calamitous
> typing error while tired.
> 
> {le si'o ce'u broda kei be mi} = my notion of Broda
> 
> However, I did say that when people think they want a ce'u in li'i,
> what they really want is not a ce'u but a variable bound to le se li'i.
> 
I apologize. I seem to have joined (against my intentions) the group that 
have taken {li'i} into the group with {si'o} and then slid from the obscurity 
about {li'i} to one about {si'o}.
But just what does "the {ce'u} is a variable bound to le se li'i" mean? The 
first guess, again, is that it is just "replace {ce'u} by le se li'i," which 
makes sense, but seems unduly curcuitous. Another is that it means a 
variable whose range depends upon what is referred to by li se li'i -- my 
experience of the dark (I don't know where the {ce'u} is supposed to go here) 
is different from yours because what is unlit for me is different from for 
you? I guess I need some examples with explanation. 
I gather that, in fact, you don't think that {ce'u} as a lambda variable 
belongs in {li'i} and that I certainly agree with. I'm less clear what you 
do think belongs there, other than {zo'e} and content.