From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 21 15:53:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 21 Sep 2001 22:53:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 94116 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2001 22:53:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Sep 2001 22:53:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n26.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.134) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Sep 2001 22:52:59 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: jjllambias@hotmail.com Received: from [10.1.4.24] by fg.egroups.com with NNFMP; 21 Sep 2001 22:52:57 -0000 Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 22:52:35 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: noxemol ce'u Message-ID: <9oggbj+brnu@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2224 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 200.41.247.42 From: jjllambias@hotmail.com la pycyn cusku di'e > Right you are, they do differ in le du be ce'u. I got off on the fact that > this is a pretty pointless one, since, if we know they differ at all, they > differ in this way, so this is not very informative. Well, it seems to be a pointful enough thing to say that it got its own gismu. Or am I too wrong in thinking that drata = frica fi le ka makau du'u ce'u (in my terms) = frica fi le du be ce'u (in your terms) = frica fi ce'u (in my 'natural' extension of your terms) > I > don't see the thread of this argument at the moment, though, since that fact > does not fit in with where I thought you were going or where you need to be > going to make some sort of case here against {ce'u} in sentences or sumti. This is where I'm going: I want to be able to say things like: ti ta frica le ka le mamta be ce'u cu klama makau This one and that one differ in where their mothers go. But obviously functions don't go anywhere. I want ce'u to always be an argument of ka. Would you accept {le se klama be le mamta be ce'u}? Is that a function into destinations, or is it the destination of a function, assuming functions can go places? What about {le frica be fi le mamta be ce'u}? Is it a function into differents, or is it someone who differs (from someone else) in their mothers? > at all that will accept both {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda} > indifferently? > > > I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised ({te tavla} looks like a case at > first glance). Nope. Talking about {le mamta} is different from talking about {le du'u makau mamta}. In the first case, the talkers might not even be aware that {le mamta} is a mother. > Again, what is the point here? I thought your concern was > about two abstractions, {le broda be ce'u} (a function to individuals) and > {le du'u makau broda} (a set of propositions). Why point to a concretum > instead, {le broda}? It seems irrelevant. My point is that just as some places require propositions and don't admit a concretum, other places ask for a function into propositions, not for a function to individuals. mu'o mi'e xorxes