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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:51:43 EDT

In a message dated 10/1/2001 12:29:45 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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.
> 

Well, no one has used it yet, so it can't exactly be thrown out, not yet 
being in. But moe to the point, we have a perfectly good way of saying it, 
so it is not lost -- and we gain a new thing we did not have before. 

<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.>

Now, this is a genuine problem, since I don't see how to get {ce'u goi cy 
zo'u} in with {le}, either before or after, unless I mess a bit with relative 
clauses, which look suspicious. Hmmmm