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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 20:58:21 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

Still a good point, but now one easily solved. We give {ce'u} the 
subscripting pattern of one of those annoying backcounting (upcounting) 
anaphora, so that it is marked for depth -- or rather bouyance. ^xFf<g<x>> 
is {ce'u xire}, F^xf<g<x>> is {ce'u xipa} and 
Ff<^xg<x>> is just {ce'u}. All desiderata restored and much more tidily (and 
{goi cy} can go in anyhwere to deal wiht coreference).