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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:27:56

la pycyn cusku di'e

>And, since nothing is thrown out in adding these, there is no place to
>look for the baby except safe in the crib it was in all the time.

But something _is_ thrown out! We could no longer
use {le ka le mamta be ce'u cu melbi} for "the property
of having a beautiful mother". That's the main reason I
don't want to take {le mamta be ce'u} as a function.

There's also the less important matter, but still significant,
that while you get ^xf(x), there's no equivalent way of
getting ^xf(g(x)).

It just wouldn't fit with the rest of the language if ce'u
had no prenex to hang from, and {le} does not provide one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp