Subject: Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} recordt

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:07:52 -0400 (EDT)

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 [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