From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 08 10:38:31 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 17:38:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 2294 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 17:38:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 17:38:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 17:38:17 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.206]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010908173815.KBMU288.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:38:15 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] li'i (was: Another stab at a Record on ce'u
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:37:30 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEMEEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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: <f.1a63c50e.28ca2e11@aol.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

pc:
> 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.

{ri} would usually not work, since x2 of li'i normally follows the abstraction
and is often elided. I'm not arguing for li'i constituting a new class of
abstraction.

--And.