Subject: ce'u usage (was: RE: Re: ka ka (was: Context Leapers)

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 01:40:47 +0100

pc:
> [email-masked] writes:
> <<
> If by redundant you mean that ka + ce'u is redundant with du'u + ce'u, I
> agree. However, I believe that the number of ways ka is used has been
> decreased by one, because after the discussion, as I have noted before, ka
> is no longer used without ce'u, or if it's lacking it's strongly implied
> to be in the first tergi'u. And I know of no other ways it is being used
> currently.
> >>
> Well, some people always put the {ce'u} in -- or almost always. 
> Others leave it out but assume it goes to the first *unoccupied* 
> place. And some people use {du'u} with the rules you describe for {ka}.

I have not seen anyone use du'u with implicit ce'u and I think there is
unanimous agreement that any implicit sumti within du'u is a zo'e and
not a ce'u. I think you and xod will agree that (i) the *rule* for ka
is nowadays held to be that iff there is no overt ce'u a ce'u is inserted
in the first unoccupied place, and (ii) in actual usage, the first
unoccupied place tends to be the first place. This is exactly parallel
to the rules (actually I'm not sure about that, but there should be
such a parallelism) and usage of ke'a within NOI.

--And.