Subject: noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 17:09:15 EDT

ce'u (KOhA)
{ce'u} may occur in any sumti position, creating an expression of a function 
from objects (represented by sumti replacing {ce'u}) into whatever type is 
represented the type of the bridi in which it immediately occurs, with three 
exceptions:
1. main bridi (unsubordinated) The problem here is to figure out what a 
function from objects to claims might be when it is apparently asserted. 
This exception would disappear with an agreed on semantics/pragmatics for 
such forms.
2. bridi subordinate to {ka}. This most common type of {ce'u} usage is 
in fact a function to propositions, {du'u}, not to properties, {ka}. The use 
of {ka} rather than {du'u} for these structures (and of {du'u} at least 
primarily without {ce'u}), is to ease descriptions of the uses of properties 
and propositions in the language and to warn of the coming of {ce'u} or not. 
[In fact, the difference dates to before the development of {ce'u} and the 
recognition that {du'u} and {ka}differ only in {ce'u}. Once the difference 
was acknowledged, the question arose whether {ce'u} could be omitted in {ka} 
bridi -- as they had regularly been up to that point -- and, if so how. 
After several attempts to find a reasonable set of rules for such omissions 
that would allow unique reconstruction, it was decided to require that all 
{ce'u} in {ka} (and {du'u}, if used) be explicit. For older usage, 
reconstruction had to be by trial and error, with the first assumption being 
(cf {ke'a}) that the missing {ce'u} was in the first place. At risk of 
misunderstanding, etc., some people will certainly continue to omit {ce'u}, 
especially in the first place, in {ka}]
3. (indirect) questions {kau}. The set of answers is sorted first by the 
replacement of the {kau}ed interrogative, rather than first replacing the 
{ce'u}, which then acts as normal with the resulting {kau}less expression.

A distinction has been suggested between "bound" {ce'u} and "free" {ce'u}. 
With the"free" cases, the range of replacements for {ce'u} is essentially 
unlimited (that is, limited only be Gricean conventions about what sorts of 
things are appropriate in the context), whereas in "bound" cases, only the 
replacements with explicitly mentioned or indicated arguments are considered. 
On inspection, it appears that these are not different cases but differnt 
uses of the same broad-range objects. In the latter, "bound," cases, only 
the selected objects make a difference, but the whole function is nonetheless 
referred to. In {le ka ce'u barda cu kampu}, the property of being large 
(largeness) is said to be common, meaning, I suppose something like many 
things have it (many arguments in the {ce'u} place map onto true claims) so 
all the (acceptable) replacements need to be considered. On the other hand, 
in {la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda}, only the arguments {la 
djumbos} and {la tamtum} need be considered to evaluate that present 
sentence, which is true if one results in a true claim, the other a false 
one (or otherwise significantly different truth values).

The use of {ce'u} with subordinate bridi other than {ka} (and {du'u}) is 
still exploratory and largely involved in finding out how other abstractions 
work: there are test cases for {li'i}and {ni} and some analogical arguments 
about {jei} and {si'o}. One use with LE alone and a particular version with 
{li'i} have been disputed. Both of these are "bound" cases so far. The LE 
is in {la dubia frica la tclsys le mamta be ce'u}, which is claimed to work 
like the {frica} example above, only giving different mothers rather than 
different truth values ultimately. The objection is that the {ce'u} is 
evaluated immediately giving something like {la dubias frica la tclsys le 
mamta be la dubias} = {...fi la babras buc}. This objection seems to reject 
the whole pattern of the use of {ce'u}, but is still in discussion. The usage 
with {li'i} requires that {ce'u} be restricted to the second argument of 
{li'i} and thus indicate the role that the observer plays in the experience 
described. The question here is whether, in fact, the experiencer must play 
a described role in the experience described, whether, for example, I can 
experience a sunset and describe that experience in Lojban without mentioning 
in the description what my role is (and what is it in a sunset, after all?). 
Should it be decided that I cannot (to distinguish my direct experiences 
from events I merely observe, say), that every experience description has to 
contain a reference to the experiencer in some role in the event, then the 
{ce'u} convention seems a convenient way of dealing with it, barring that 
more general direct functions to experiences are wanted (unexplored 
territory, I think).

{ce'u} (cf {ma}) is a new pointer each time it occurs, but it is sometimes 
necessary to identify two or more places in function of some sort: self-love 
or some kind of incest, for example. In the simple case, both {c'eu} at the 
same level, the ordinary anaphora systems will often work straightforwardly: 
{le ka ce'u prami ri} for self-love. It is less clear whether these work 
when the two occurrences are on different levels: is {ce'u} the last sumti 
before the gap in {le nu le patfu be ce'u cu gletu ...} or is it {le patfu be 
ce'u} (nevermind the sense resolving this case). But one can always fall 
back on either {cy} or {lac} if only one {ce'u} is involved or some subscript 
to pick out {ce'u} in some order (but which one?) if there are several. This 
example also points to a possible (but largely unexplored) question of 
whether {ce'u} in subordinate phrases in a structure may be taken as part of 
the overall structure or have to be evaluated separately before the overall 
structure is revealed. The intended reading here is clearly that they may be 
taken into the overall structure; it is unclear whether the other order of 
evaluations would give a different result. This appliies also to the rule 
about the order in questions, where the opposite position is taken. The 
assumption underlying both these decisions is that it does not really matter 
in the end, but these conventions are most convenient for the particular 
(sorts of) cases. Experiments and models and formalizatiosn remain to be 
approved and worked though to decide these issues.