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

From: Adam Raizen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 21:37:53 +0200

la pycyn. cusku di'e

> This being one of the places where a bridi-possibility is denied in
a sumti
> construction. The problem remains: the so-called bridi is merely a
part of a
> selbri used in a sumti, as remote from a "real" bridi as the one
buried after
> LE (perhaps more so since it doesn't even have to have a real-world
> referent). So, by the same reasoning that says the "selbri" (it
isn't, of
> course, really a selbri, since there is no bridi) in a simple
description is
> not a bridi, this expression can't be a bridi either, so {nei} can't
refer to
> its first term. I know the grammar is written to allow it, but that
just
> shows that the grammar is inconsistent with its explanation of what
it is
> about. If we learn the grammar as an uninterpreted system, this
would be no
> problem, but we learn it as an explanation of what is going on in
the
> langauge. As such, it breaks down at this point, one way or the
other -- it
> either allows something that it ought not or disallows something
that should
> get in. This is waht I mean by saying picking the middle
possibility is not
> an obvious choice, even if it is officially the right one.

I agree that logically the two constructions are identical, but this
is a grammatical rule dictated by the grammatical structure, and not a
logical rule. In particular, since you can say 'ko'a poi broda gi'e
brode' but not 'le broda gi'e brode', I think that the two structures
are significantly different. If we were designing Lojban from scratch,
I would support putting an entire bridi after 'le', but we're not and
that can't be changed now.

mu'o mi'e .adam.