From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 17:58:32 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 00:58:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 95477 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 00:50:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 00:50:20 -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 <20010907005018.NZFI710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:50:18 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:49:35 +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: <12a.3a6177e.28c15071@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > In a message dated 8/31/2001 12:08:25 PM Central Daylight Time, > a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > > ., > mi> = (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. When others want to say {X se li'i ce'u broda}, I want it to be {X se li'i X broda}. In the most generalizable solution, the second X would be an anaphor whose antecedent/binder is the first X, the experiencer. I couldn't find any anaphor that would do the job, so proposed {no'au}, which works like no'a but applies to all types of phrase, not just bridi. --And.