Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:03:28 -0400 (EDT)

And Rosta scripsit:

> One can say {le ka ce'u gleki cu xamgu do}, but not with ce'u construed
> as "mi". It would mean "The property of being happy...".

I agree.

> {le ka mi gleki} if it means anything would mean the same as {le du'u
> mi gleki}.

I think a more plausible interpretation is le ka mi gleki ce'u: the
property of being the event that I am happy about.

> Certainly {se ka} would be useful, and li'i does need something like
> ce'u, though ke'a would be more appropriate (because there is only
> one experiencer per li'i, and multiple ke'as are coindexed but multiple
> ce'u are not[*]); in fact, for the same reasons, ke'a would be more
> appropriate than ce'u in se ka, because se ka would be specifically
> for one-place functions, whereas ka is for one- and many- place
> functions.

Okay, so seka is short for ckaji be ka. Hmm. I don't favor adding
anything to ka at present, but I am willing to be convinced.
In fact, I now think that the x2 of du'u was a mistake, and that la'e le
du'u (or in a selbri context, sinxa le du'u) is more Lojbanic.

As to multi-ce'u abstractions, one question that has never been answered
(perhaps not even raised) is what sort of thing a "ckaji be ka
ce'u broda ce'u" is. It seems plausible to me that it is a Lojban sequence.
Any thoughts?

> I think you should definitely include only kosher "unfilled" ce'u.

I agree.

> When? I think omitting {ce'u} is a very bad thing. If they are omitted
> they should covertly occur somewhere where a covert zo'e occurs. Any
> convention for the default to be x1 will make matters worse, for reasons
> I listed in a recent message to Xod, which I can dig up if required.
> (Search archives for "gardenpath".)

I think that omitting ce'u is perfectly all right, and the notion that
it should go in the first unfilled place by convention (not rule) is
acceptable. If that happens to be x1, fine. Certainly a filled x1 should
not be the ce'u, since IMHO that is the result of an inappropriate ka.

> Defeasible how? Only by filling every sumti place, and either filling
> them with something other than zo'e or agreeing that zo'e cannot be
> read as ce'u.

I think that reading zo'e as ce'u requires about the same level of
stretch as reading zo'e as noda: a special license from the Archbishop
of Canterbury.

Certainly if there is any confusion, it is better to use explicit ce'u,
which is why ce'u exists at all.

> That example is an error, and should be {le nu}.

Indeed. IMHO it should be added to the Wiki errata list.

> In a way this is an admirable attempt to read sense into official usage.
> But if we are allowed to entertain the idea that official usage might be
> wrong, then here's how I see it.
> 
> 1. If ce'u is bound, it is the semantics of the matrix selbri that binds
> it. A syntactic notion of c-command is too general.
> 
> 2. Ideally, don't omit ce'u. If you do omit ce'u, they should be insertable
> only in empty slots. A convention for putting ce'u in an empty x1 slot
> is convenient but creates problems.
> 
> 3. Unbound ce'u has a generic interpretation: {ka (da) prami ce'u} =
> "the property of being loved", {ka ce'u prami ce'u} = "Love"

I agree with all this as far as I understand it.

> [T]he current received wisdom is that a ka is merely a du'u that
> promises it contains a covert or overt ce'u.

Just so.

-- 
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email-masked]
Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan