From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Sep 06 20:07:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 03:07:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 88847 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 03:06:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 03:06:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 03:06:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8736FI17658 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:06:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 23:06:14 -0400 (EDT) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, And Rosta wrote: > pc: > > 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. mi se li'i mi klama This means I am experiencing the experience of my going, which is meta to mi se li'i ce'u klama where I experience the abstracted-experience of going. The former gloss can be illustrated with do se li'i mi klama where you experience the experience of my going. ----- "We should destroy the Muslims' homes while leaving the Christians' homes alone." -- Rehavam Zeevi, Israeli Tourism Minister