Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again

From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:24:45 -0500

On Saturday 30 March 2002 12:59, [email-masked] wrote:
> le ka la fred bilma cu du'u ce'u zmadu le nu la djorj bilma le du'u ce'u
> kei rinka le nu le bilma cu roble

That says that George's symptoms are the fact that ... then the clause is 
aborted with {kei} with no selbri yet, so it doesn't parse.

> or
>
> le ni la fred bilma cu zmadu le ni la djordj bilma le ni ce'u rinka le nu
> le bilma cu roble

That says that George's symptoms are the amount of causation.

{lenu la fred. bilma cu zmadu lenu la djordj. bilma kei
leka ce'u rinka leka zo'e ruble} could be construed as the illness making 
someone else weak. {lenu la fred. bilma cu zmadu lenu la djordj. bilma kei
leka ce'u rinka leka ce'u ruble} sounds pretty clear, even though the first 
ce'u is the illness and the second is Fred or George. {leni ... leni} may be 
better.

If I weren't teaching about abstractions and subordinate clauses, I'd say 
{lenu la fred. bilma cu blerikmau lenu la djordj. bilma}.

phma