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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:35:49 EDT

In a message dated 9/27/2001 10:04:04 AM Central Daylight Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

&:
> Sorry; I agreed with you overhastily. My argument is simply that any 
> proposed 
> main clause meaning must be one that doesn't stymie the subordinate 
> meaning. Your proposed main clause meaning did stymie the subordinate 
> meaning. And, though it is not part of my argument, I indeed can't imagine 
> an adequate mainclause meaning.> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that I had proposed a main clause reading for anything: I'm 
> fairly sure I said I had no idea what {ke'a broda} or {ce'u broda} means in 
> isolation -- I certainly do't know now: lambda expressions are inherently 
> sumti. But I see your problem: you take {ko'a broda le brode be ce'u} as a 
> main clause occurrence, which I explicitly deny. In your terminology, 
> {ce'u} is here bound to the {le} just as in {ka makau mamta ce'u} it is 
> bound to the {ka} (thought the binding is rather different. 
> 
All of which suggests that maybe instead of {le se broda} we could use {le 
broda be ke'a}, by parity of reasoning (or parody?).