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

From: Adam Raizen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:29:02 +0200

la pycyn. cusku di'e

> > le te bilma be la fred le te bilma be la djordj. cu zmadu le ka
ce'u blegau
> > le bilma be le nei

'te bilma be fi la djordj.' and 'le bilma be fi le nei', of course. My
mistake.

> > or
> >
> > le nu la fred bilma kei le nu la djordj. bilma cu zmadu le ka ce'u
blegau
> > le
> > se nunbilma be le nei
> >
>
> Can a disease really gasnu anything? It doesn't seem to be a person
or
> agent. Nor does an event. I think we have to stick with
{rinka/ri'a}

I think 'gasnu' is the most general predicate for causation, and it
works with all kinds of things. However, if you disagree, change it to
'rinka', it's not the important point.

> Does {le nei} get the right thing either time? In the first it
seems to be
> the disease but comes out as a symptom -- unless it is theill person
himself
> as a symptom or the cause of the weakness as a symptom (exactly
which
> predication counts as the current one is obscure, but none of them
seem to
> work). Much the same problems occur in the second case, though the
choice of
> corect readings is somewhat harder to spell out in English, except
as
> possibly superfluous.

'nei' refers to the current bridi, and so 'le nei' refers to the x1 of
blegau in each case. Selbri are not bridi, but if you want to be
obstinate and insist that they are, change 'le nei' to 'cy.'

mu'o mi'e .adam.