Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 17:32:41 EDT

In a message dated 9/8/2001 3:45:13 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> But given that ce'u in free ka is relatively clearly defined, and that
> ka/ce'u are only defined as free, the bound ka usage being something
> of a groping in the dark, bound ka should not have first claim on
> ce'u, however much more frequently needed bound ka is than free ka.
> So instead you should be looking for an alternative to ce'u -- an
> experimental cmavo, if necessary.
> 

Bound ka is just free ka where we are uninterested in the whole range of 
value, but focused on a few cases. Since we are only comparing W and Jeb 
with respect to some function, we only care about what the value of the 
function is for them as arguments. But the whole function is involved 
(though, of course, we could do with a fucntion whose range is restricted to 
W and Jeb, but that would take more time than its worth, since it would ahve 
to agree with the big function for these value anyhow). so {ka ... ce'u} is 
correct and adequate for teh purpose, even though we ignore most of its 
content.