From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Sep 02 08:10:30 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); 2 Sep 2001 15:10:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 55237 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 15:10:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 15:10:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 15:10:24 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.86]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010902151022.VIZG20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 16:10:22 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 16:09:36 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMCEHBEKAA.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: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0108311325580.27400-100000@reva.sixgirls.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Xod:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> > xod:
> > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > Xod:
> > > > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > > > > i. ce'u makes sense in li'i as well as du'u and ka.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, I don't think so. Does "li'i da -rain" [bugger. tip of the
> > > > > > tongue. carmi?cevni? no] (= experience of it raining) make sense. I
> > > > > > think it does. So I think "experience of having legs" is NOT
> > > > > > "li'i ce'u se tuple" but rather "li'i le se NO'AU se tuple", where
> > > > > > NO'AU = next outer phrase (regardless of whether it is a bridi) = a
> > > > > > sibling of NO'A.
> > > > >
> > > > > li'i ce'u klama
> > > > > experience of going
> > > > >
> > > > > li'i ce'u xelklama
> > > > > experience of being a vehicle
> > > > >
> > > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > But what sort of thing is ce'u in this construction. It seems nothing
> > > > more than a variable bound to x2 of li'i. That's not at all what ce'u
> > > > in ka or si'o or du'u is. So I'd change your examples to:
> > >
> > > What is the big difference you see between si'o2 and li'i2?
> >
> > I don't really understand what you're asking. But at any rate, it is
> > clear that a ce'u in si'o is not bound to x2 of si'o (le se si'o).
>
> I see what you're saying. But the li'i needs a focus. Are you suggesting
> we bust out yet another cmavo rather than use ce'u in li'i?

The li'i doesn't always need a focus: {le li'i da carvi kei be mi} =
my experience of it raining. So "my experience of me belching" should
be {le li'i mi kafke kei be mi}, not {le li'i ce'u kafke kei be mi}.

--And.