From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Sep 24 09:09:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 24 Sep 2001 16:08:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 11134 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2001 16:07:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 24 Sep 2001 16:07:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 Sep 2001 16:08:50 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:46:32 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:17:28 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:17:03 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta pc: #a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: #> I haven't really been keeping up with this thread, partly because #> I'm short of time and partly because on skimming it Jorge seems #> to be saying everything I would wish said (so consider my voice=20 #> to be being implicitly added as an echo of Jorge's). But I just=20 #> want to chime in here to point out that I said that ce'u belongs to=20 #> the localmost bridi, and since {le mamta be ce'u} is not a bridi,=20 #> the ce'u is not 'confined' to that phrase; the ce'u belongs to the #> bridi in which {le mamta be ce'u} is a sumti. # #Sorry to have misrepresented you. But unfortunately, {ce'u} as a lambda= =20 #variable is confinded to the limits of bridi fragment in this case: ^xg(x)= is=20 #well-formed and takes precedence over ^xFg(x). which requires a separate=20 #form (put another way, the bridi fragment is a bridi, though not asserted = -- but=20 #then none of the ones containing ce'u are asserted). Much though I rue it, I remain much in the dark about the formals of lambda= , but I do believe it is clear that just as ka ce'u prami ce'u denotes the relation between x and y such that x loves y, so=20 ka ce'u prami le mamta be ce'u denotes the relation between x and y such that x loves a mother of y, and likewise, just as ka da prami ce'u=20 is the property of being beloved, so ka da prami le mamta be ce'u is the property of having a mother who is beloved. Probably Jorge has said all this already, but I am certainly one of those conservatives who=20 thinks ce'u belongs to the localmost grammatical bridi. (Actually, I think it belongs to the localmost ka/du'u/?si'o and not any old bridi or abstraction, but that's not relevant to the point at issue.) Anyway, I retain my faith in Jorge as the voice of reason and (tho less immoderately than I would wish) of Reason. --And.