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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:26:30 EDT

In a message dated 10/8/2001 11:37:58 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I should have learned from last time I attempted to argue with pc; you
> can't contradict something that he believes, you can only make him raise
> it to a higher level of abstraction.
> 

Well, as I recall, it was you all that came out with abstract sentences and 
sumti that weren't there but somehow were what did the referring in a 
sentence and with grandiose generalities that have not been backed up. I 
have just asked about a single simple construction, {le mamta be ce'u}, that 
fits into a greater class of similar constructions and should, therefore, 
have a certain meaning. I've heard that it is an impossible construction -- 
though jbofi'e and the old grammar disagree -- and that it doesn't mean any 
such thing and that it violates old established rules made up that moment and 
that fall to the first case cited. This is abstraction on my part? How pray 
might I be concrete then?

<If pc wants to make ce'u bind to arbitrary things, he can establish it
through usage.>

What, Lojban slipshod terminology aside, does "bind to arbitrary things" 
mean? {ce'u} is a bound variable that can occur, so far as the data goes, 
just about anywhere any sumti can. It is essentially self boudn, and unlike 
an otherwise similar {da} takes absolutely shortest scope, except that it may 
inidcate a longer one with subscripts. I gather that the idea is that that 
scope has always to be inside and coincide with an abstraction phrase or, at 
least, a bridi. So the question may be "what is a bridi in this case?" 
Well, we have one definition (and only one, sentence_40 defines "sentence").
Of course, letting me establish usage is no permission at all, since that is 
mine by right. Indeed, it was trying to do this that started the whole thing 
off. Does this "permission" mean that you will not kick up any more ruckuses 
if I proceed? i rahter thought not.