Subject: Re: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 10:05:05 EDT

In a message dated 9/6/2001 8:00:14 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] 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.