Subject: RE: [lojban] noxemol ce'u

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 01:34:10 +0100

pc:
> 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).

1. What is the difference, if any, between

{la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda}

and

{la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka xu kau ce'u barda}

?

2. What is the rationale (apart from prior usage) for using ce'u rather
than ma kau? Your sentence (under your interpretation of it) could
be englished as "D and T differ in terms of which of them is big", which
in turns suggests a lojbanization of:

{la djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ma kau barda}

3. I can follow your story about the essentially unbound nature of {la
djumbos frica la tamtum le ka ce'u barda} but it seems to me that on
your story,

{la djan la bil frica lo ka ce'u prami ma kau}

means "there is some value of ma kau such that lo ka ce'u prami that
value is true for la djan xor la bil".

... In which case, it might just as well be said as:

{da zo'u la djan la bil frica lo ka ce'u prami da}

This then eradicates the construction where qkau and ce'u necessarily
cooccur, and leaves the way open to my strategy of replacing core
qkau (in core interrogative contexts) with "da -extension-of tu'odu'u
ce'u".

> 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.

Who made that claim? I don't recall having seen it before.

> {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.

It would.

{lo du'u ce'u tavla lo du'u ce'u mabla}

(i) the function whereby X talks about Y being mabla
(ii) the property of talking about mablahood

Lojban's general rules of scope resolve this ambiguity: the ce'u is bound
in the localmost bridi. Hence the Lojban means (ii), not (i). To say (i):

{lo du'u ce'u goi ko'a zo'u ce'u tavla lo du'u ko'a mabla}

--And.