From araizen@newmail.net Sun Aug 19 17:00:50 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 20 Aug 2001 00:00:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 13886 invoked from network); 20 Aug 2001 00:00:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 20 Aug 2001 00:00:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n34.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.1.30) by mta1 with SMTP; 20 Aug 2001 00:00:49 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: araizen@newmail.net Received: from [10.1.10.93] by mk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 20 Aug 2001 00:00:49 -0000 Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:00:46 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: ce'u Message-ID: <9lpjve+s4pc@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 844 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 62.0.182.62 From: "Adam Raizen" la and. cusku di'e > > In my opinion, an added x2 for {ka} won't invalidate text; > > Does any text contain ka with multiple noncoreferential ce'u? If so, > this would be incompatible with x2 for {ka}. Certainly every use of 'simxu' implicitly does, i.e. "mi ce do simxu le ka ce'u pendo ce'u". However, this may not be a problem. One could join the sumti together with something like "ce'o". I think there's another problem here, though. According to the Book, pp. 260-261, the selbri of a bridi like "mi penmi do" is "le ka ce'u prami ce'u", and the terbri is something like "mi ce'o do". If the x2 of 'ka' is added, then a fully explicit abstraction would be "le ka ce'u prami ce'u kei be mi ce'o do", which semantically means the same as the whole bridi, thus depriving us of a way to refer to just the selbri. mu'o mi'e adam