From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 07 07:09:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 14:09:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 68060 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 14:05:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 14:05:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r05.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.101) by mta3 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 14:05:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.f.1a63c50e (4327) for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:05:05 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f.1a63c50e.28ca2e11_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_f.1a63c50e.28ca2e11_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/6/2001 8:00:14 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > 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. > Now, can X have an experience of brodaing in general, not of something brodaing. I guess I don't think so and so find {li'i ce'u broda} not to make sense. Must that something be X? Clearly not, but that is an especially common case, I would think. So the first temptation is surely to leave the first place of {broda} bare in that case -- and this is almost certainly what happened in the little bit of use {li'i} has gotten over the years. Popping that up the {ce'u}, on the analogy of {ka}, or to {zo'e}, on the analogy of {du'u}, seem equally misguided. Being explicit is, we now know from the toehr cases, the best policy, so we need "X" there or its anaphor. Would {ri} worik in most cases? Creating a new class of this situation (are there going to be others?) seems excessive. --part1_f.1a63c50e.28ca2e11_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/6/2001 8:00:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


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.

Now, can X have an experience of brodaing in general, not of something
brodaing.  I guess I don't think so and so find {li'i ce'u broda} not to make
sense. Must that something be X?  Clearly not, but that is an especially
common case, I would think.  So the first temptation is surely to leave the
first place of {broda} bare in that case -- and this is almost certainly what
happened in the little bit of use {li'i} has gotten over the years.  Popping
that up the {ce'u}, on the analogy of {ka}, or to {zo'e}, on the analogy of
{du'u}, seem equally misguided.  Being explicit is, we now know from the
toehr cases, the best policy, so we need "X" there or its anaphor.  Would
{ri} worik in most cases?  Creating a new class of this situation (are there
going to be others?) seems excessive.
--part1_f.1a63c50e.28ca2e11_boundary--