From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sun Sep 09 23:57:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 10 Sep 2001 06:57:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 17309 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2001 06:57:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2001 06:57:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2001 06:57:07 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.126]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010909204115.UCNG29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2001 21:41:15 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 21:40:29 +0100 Message-ID: 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" pc: > a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com 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. Maybe, but in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standard usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami Y}. X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in our exsmples??) and Y ranges freely. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u. So although I could accept your story that X is a contextually restricted ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u in the same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical form). Maybe something like la dybiyb la tcelsik frica lo du'u ce'u goi fo'o zo'u ce'u -extension lo du'u ce'u mamta fo'o which suggestion is made largely fumbling in the dark. --And.