Subject: ce'u

From: Nick NICHOLAS <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:20:21 -0700 (PDT)

There has been a fairly icky exchange on ce'u in
http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?ce%27u . I am disinclined to say
anything about this anymore, but this does have to be cleared up for the
lessons, and the final lesson discusses ce'u. So here goes.

I will try and (a) break this up into digestible issues; (b) not be
partisan.

1. Implicit in much of the misunderstandings on that discussion is the
following issue: is it meaningful to speak of an abstraction containing
ce'u, outside a bridi? That is, can ce'u be filled with a value that does
not come from the jufra containing it?

If it can, then one can say things like {leka *mi* gleki cu xamgu do}
(where {mi} fills the {ce'u} slot --- I'm avoiding {ce'u} for now.)

If it cannot, then a sentence like this is meaningless: you should be
saying {lenu mi gleki cu xamgu do}, and reserving {ka} with filled {ce'u}
slots for bridi where the filler is in the same jufra; e.g. {do fange mi
leka ce'u pinxe loi tcati}.

As an extension of this, filling {ce'u} slots might even 'be considered
harmful'; something wih an explicit value instead of {ce'u} is no longer a
property at all.

2. If you allow {ce'u} slots to be filled by explicit sumti, how should
you fill them?

Nicholas in the Lessons proposes {le ka ce'u xendo fa mi}.

Nicholas in the Lessons and Wiki proposes and adopts {le ka ce'u no'u mi
xendo}

Raizen (if I interpret him correctly) does not believe {ce'u} slots should
be filled by explicit sumti, but will allow as a "lesser of evils" the
expression {le ka mi zo'u ce'u xendo}

Recent discussion on the list (Rosta, Llambias) has suggested an x2 of
{ka}: {le ka ce'u xendo kei be mi}. This would bring {ka} in line with
{li'i}. (As a side note, it has also been proposed on the Wiki that {li'i}
abstractions should contain a {ce'u}. This would make {ka} and {li'i}
behave identically.)

(Editorial note: I would be delighted to put this into the lessons
instead, if it is considered not to violate the cmavo baseline. Otherwise,
I don't feel I can.)

3. If a {ka}-phrase is lacking {ce'u}, where should it be read in by
default?

If you believe {ka}-phrases can have filled {ce'u} values, then whether or
not a sumti place is empty does not necessarily affect where that value can be
read in. If you believe {ka}-phrases should not have filled {ce'u} values,
then the default place to read {ce'u} must be an empty place.

Nicholas holds the former, and believes the default should be x1. Rosta
has expressed himself similarly.

Raizen (I think) holds the latter, and believes the default should be the
first available empty space. This makes {ce'u} behave identically to
{ke'a}.

Cowan has said that the location of {ce'u} should be glorked from context.
(In response to which, Nicholas wants the status of {ce'u} interpretation
to be the same as that of {ke'a}: default and defeasible. As a reminder,
the location of {ke'a} is also primarily meant to be glorked from
context.)

xod may or may not be changing his mind about this; his initial position,
at least, is that usage is that {ce'u} and {ke'a} are elided only in x1,
and are not inserted in already filled places.

In the Reference Grammar, Examples 11.4.7 and 11.4.8 clearly treat elided
{ce'u} like {ke'a} (Raizen): {le ka mi prami} = {le ka mi prami ce'u}
"the property of (I love X). Example 11.4.4. just as clearly treats elided
{ce'u} as occupying a filled x1 slot (Nicholas): {le ka do xunre} "The
property-of your being-red" = "Your redness".

The reason for the difference is
obvious, on inspection. 11.4.7 has a 'bounded' {ka}-clause: {la djan. cu
zmadu la djordj. le ka mi prami ce'u} --- {ce'u} is bounded to {djan} and
{djordj} in the nesting abstraction. In linguistic terminology, it is a
c-commanded anaphor. 11.4.4 has a 'free' {ka}-clause: {le ka do xunre
[kei] cu cnino mi}, where the {ka}-clause is x1. Note the counterexample of
11.4.3, in which the {ce'u} is now empty, and the {ka}-clause is
(arguably) not 'free': {do cnino mi le ka xunre [kei]}.

To me, this indicates that the refgramm does not favour either mechanism
of resolving the location of {ce'u}. Rather, its usage implies yet another
way of resolving elided {ce'u} --- apparently dependent on Natural
Language notions of anaphor bondedness. If {ce'u} would be c-commanded in
the {ka}-clause (ce'u = la djordj, la djan), put it in the first empty
place. If {ce'u} would be free in the {ka}-clause (the {ka}-clause is
x1, there's no plausible antecedent noun), treat it as the x1 slot, empty or
not.

I am not saying such a rule would be good for Lojban; in fact, I'd say the
opposite. But I think this is what John was unconsciously doing.

***

Now for the editorial. Actually, I'll be mercifully brief: I now think
there is something wrong about {le ka mi xendo cu xamgu do}. I'm almost
prepared to concede that {ka} should not be a free agent, like {nu} and
{du'u}, but restricted to bridi contexts which can plausibly supply the
means of filling in the value of {ce'u}. However, I also think the
mechanism of filling in the value of {ce'u} should be local to the
{ka}-clause, for clarity if nothing else. And I think that making {ka} and
{li'i} behave uniformly, so that both take {ce'u} and both take x2, would
be a very good thing.

The primary baseline concern, as I understand it, is not to invalidate
existing text. In my opinion, an added x2 for {ka} won't invalidate text;
and an x1 default for {ce'u}, filled or not, is also the
solution that invalidates the least existing text. For different reasons,
though (sacredness of cmavo list, logical messiness of x1 default), I am
pessimistic about either being adopted.

-- 
== == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == ==
Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu}
[email-masked] -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias