From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Wed Oct 02 17:39:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 3 Oct 2002 00:39:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 42491 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2002 00:39:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2002 00:39:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-7.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.107) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2002 00:39:11 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-80.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.80]) by mailbox-7.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F557263BB for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2002 02:39:09 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: ce'u usage (was: RE: Re: ka ka (was: Context Leapers) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 01:40:47 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: > xod@thestonecutters.net 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.