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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:41:46 EST

In a message dated 3/30/2002 12:25:34 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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.
> 

See corrections sent directly after original.

<> 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.>

Ditto

<. {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.>

I'd say {leni} {le ni} {le ni} {le nu} (indeed, did say). The last {le ka} 
is almost certainly wrong with {rinka}. I would say that the one before was 
a property of events of causing, not a property of cases of illness (see 
first suggestion), but that is only one construal of the mess in Refgram and 
Lojbab's mind. Still, I'd replace that {ka} with {du'u}, to ease worries 
about where the {ce'u} might be hiding, if nothing else.

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

And so would we all, I hope -- or something very like.