Subject: Re: [lojban] noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:55:31 EDT

In a message dated 9/15/2001 1:53:34 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >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}
> >
> >?
> 
> The second one is clear, they differ in whether or not they are big,
> i.e. one is big and the other isn't.
> 
> The first one is incomplete, as you need to have some kau in the
> te frica. For example it could be interpreted as {le ka ce'u barda
> makau}, they differ in what dimension they are big in.
> 

Why? The first is "They differ in bigness (in the usual whatever dimension)" 
And at least seems to be following the latest dictate of fashion, one which 
requires all {ce'u} to show in {ka} (and certainly in {du'u}) with the 
remaining gaps filled with {zo'e}. This looks like a case of the sort of 
thing conventions are designed to deal with and we don't seem yet to be 
together on what the conventions are. 
We are not, at the moment, in a {makau} situation, although there are several 
available one to hand, all deriving by {frica}ization from {la djumbos barda 
ijonai la tamtum barda} There is also the ever popular "in how big they are" 
{le du'u [I think, maybe {nu}] makau ni ce'u barda}. I know you don't like 
this {ni}, but I don't understand any other one, and it fits nicely here as 
does "in size" (le ni ce'u barda}.