From cowan@ccil.org Sun Aug 19 14:07:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 19 Aug 2001 21:07:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 59427 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2001 21:07:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 19 Aug 2001 21:07:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta2 with SMTP; 19 Aug 2001 21:07:45 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15YZnU-0000U8-00; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:07:52 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} recordt In-Reply-To: <0108191638020N.01556@neofelis> from Pierre Abbat at "Aug 19, 2001 04:38:02 pm" To: phma@oltronics.net Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:07:52 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan Pierre Abbat scripsit: > I think both 2 and 3. In formal Lojban, {ce'u} fills the first unfilled > place, counting {zo'e} as filling a place; in informal Lojban, it fills the > first unfilled place that makes sense. I would also apply these rules to ke'a > in relative clauses. Me too. But neither of these is a *rule* of the language, in the sense of "if there are no untagged sumti before the selbri, then x1 must be empty". > Would ce'uxipa and ce'uxire apply to two sumti such that the property is a > relationship between them, or would they apply to different levels of nested > ka? I think the latter works for ke'a, but not for ce'u, except perhaps for a coreference to an upper-level ka, and in that case, which ce'u (if there is more than one) is meant? -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org 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