From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 17:57:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 00:57:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 98519 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:50:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:37 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.88]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907005032.NZHG710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:50:32 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:49 +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: <11b.3a4cd35.28bed59c@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > > I suggest that you send to the list a new summary containing nothing > but the rules you think should be given a try. And give your proposal > a name. > > The full monty version: put a ce'u in the first free place (place not > occupied by a content expression -- this can always be the first place by > using SE or FA) and in every other place where {ce'u} is intended, if any. > > Abbreviated version. If there are only one or two {ce'u} make the first > place one of them and then omit the {ce'u}, put the other one in > where wanted. > If there are more than two {ce'u} but not all places are {ce'u}, make the > first place {zo'e} and put {zo'e} wherever they are required. > {du'u} has no {ce'u} implied or overt. All {ce'u}, write 'em all in. I still find this formulation too vague to be sure what you intend by it, and I can't see any basis for your claim that your proposal is the one that minimizes the need for overt ce'u in cases where omitted ce'u isn't simply glorked. Also, it is not always possible to arrange things so that ce'u is x1 of the main bridi (e.g. when ce'u is within an abstraction). And even when it is possible, it could be cumbersome (e.g. when one would normally say "le broda be le brode be ce'u"). But I think we also agreed that these rules aren't worth the trouble, so there's no point answering my objections unless you do believe your proposal to still be worth discussing. --And.