From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Aug 21 10:02:27 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 21 Aug 2001 17:02:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 23516 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2001 16:57:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 21 Aug 2001 16:57:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 21 Aug 2001 16:57:13 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 21 Aug 2001 17:35:54 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:02:43 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:02:21 +0100 To: lojban Subject: du'u in lieu of ka (was: Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} record Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta pc: #cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes: # #> Or 3) Not so -- some {ce'u} may be implicit, and it is up to the #> intelligence of the hearer/reader to figure out where they go. #=20 #Yes, that is a position too and, indeed, probably what we have been=20 #mainly working with lo these many years. But it is hideously soft-line an= d=20 #illogical, since it makes every {ka} phrase vague (or ambiguous,=20 #depending on how hard-line you are). The problem is that glorking is=20 #unreliable at best: witness pc and cowan on {le ka prami}. Of course,=20 #people often are vague about just what they mean, but rarely, I think,=20 #ambiguous in just this way. I agree, but there is a remedy within the baseline, so long as zo'e cannot be read as a ce'u (and if it can, then existing usage of du'u is unspeakably ambiguous): And The Cowan has averred that construing zo'e as ce'u is as heinous as construing it as noda. Since {du'u} doesn't guarantee the presence of a covert or overt ce'u, using {du'u ... ce'u} instead of {ka ... (ce'u)} forces all ce'u to be overt. Thus those of us who are rightly worried about the horrible vagueness/ambiguity of allowing covert ce'u within ka bridi can simply not use ka and use du'u instead. --And.