Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

From: And Rosta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:17:03 +0100

pc:
[email-masked] 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 
#> to be being implicitly added as an echo of Jorge's). But I just 
#> want to chime in here to point out that I said that ce'u belongs to 
#> the localmost bridi, and since {le mamta be ce'u} is not a bridi, 
#> 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 
#variable is confinded to the limits of bridi fragment in this case: ^xg(x)is 
#well-formed and takes precedence over ^xFg(x). which requires a separate 
#form (put another way, the bridi fragment is a bridi, though not asserted -- but 
#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 

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 

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 
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.