Subject: Re: noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 23:06:00 -0000

la pycyn cusku di'e

> <I would call {le mamta be ce'u} abuse of notation if it refers
> to a function and not to a mother sort of critter.>
> 
> I know. But {ce'u} just does that sort of thing, changing 
perfectly good 
> expressions into functions, whose values flow back to the right 
sorts of 
> things.

Normally, {le broda} is {ko'a voi ke'a broda}.
Is {le broda be ce'u} also {ko'a voi ke'a broda ce'u}?
Or does ce'u block this sort otransformation?

> The point now is, we have this perfectly legitimate sumti and a 
theory about 
> what it should mean drawn from logic. Should we use this material 
or not. 

I think I will pass. 

> We have to explain the construction somehow. There may be other 
theories 
> about what it means, but none have surfaced yet and they will 
probably not 
> have the good backing of this one nor fit so well into the general 
theory of 
> how {ce'u} and {makau} work.

I don't think it fits all that well.

{le mamta} is clearly distinct from {le du'u makau mamta},
and can never be a substitute for it. I don't see why 
{le mamta be ce'u} should be allowed to stand for
{le du'u makau mamta ce'u}. English allows both substitutions.
Lojban, the way I understand it, does not allow either.

mu'o mi'e xorxes