Subject: Re: [lojban] tautologies

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:51:52 EST

In a message dated 2/11/2002 5:17:17 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> We more or less
> >#understand what {makau broda} means as a subordinate clause, but
> >#in Lojban it is also grammatical as a free floating clause. Is
> >#there a possible generlization of the meaning so as to cover this
> >#case, or are we forced to declare it nonsense?"
> >
> >As I just said in a message of 2 minutes ago, you need to ask the
> >same question about ce'u.
> 
> Ok, but the answer may not be the same. {kau} takes us from an
> incomplete bridi to an unspecified completion. {ce'u} takes us
> from an incomplete bridi to a property _of something_. I don't
> know what to do with a dangling property, but I do know what to
> do with a dangling unspecified completion of an incomplete bridi.
> I wouldn't know what to do with a floating ke'a-clause either.
> 

I am unclear what "an unspecified completion" might be over and above an 
incomplete bridi (unless that also includes ones with unfilled places). 
{ce'u} isn't limited to properties but can turn up in any kind of abstraction 
(and other things as well), eventually turning them into a variety of things, 
depending on what you start with. {ke'a) is a relative clause when the 
relative is not the first argument and so is not capbable of standing free 
(neither are the others, so far as I can see) since it has to be hooked to 
the relatum.
OK, what do you do with a dangling unspecified completion of an incomplete 
bridi? How, if at all, is this related to an undangling one (note, you still 
owe an explanation of that for the things you have been pitching around 
lately)?