From pycyn@aol.com Tue Aug 21 15:37:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 21 Aug 2001 22:37:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 61698 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2001 22:35:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2001 22:35:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Aug 2001 22:35:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.fb.18af0317 (3927) for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:34:50 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Toward a {ce'u} record To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fb.18af0317.28b43c0a_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_fb.18af0317.28b43c0a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/21/2001 1:31:47 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 lojbab@lojban.org writes: > To me the archetypal ka has holes in ALL places=20 > that are unfilled, including all plausible modal places. Others seem to= =20 > think that the archetype has one and only one hole which is filled by the= =20 > ce'u and indicates what the property is "about". >=20 > I will agree that most places where a ka abstraction is used in a sumti a= re=20 > single-hole examples, but I don't want the assumption that this is always= =20 > the case to hold because I'm pretty sure that exceptions can and will occ= ur. >=20 > >So, the disagreement is about whether the {ce'u} must always be written = in > >and, if not, where the implicit one is. >=20 > You use singular ce'u here, begging my issue. >=20 I agree, but was trying not to blow too many minds (which were having=20 problems with ONE {ce'u}) , cf pc & cowan on {le ka prami} Well, some would say that conventions precisely ARE binding, since that is= =20 what they were introduced to do. In any case, the issue is how to be preci= se=20 and still not hopelessly verbose. I understand that 3) represent the current Lojban Central position and=20 recognize its advantage, namely, that you can use any convention you want a= nd=20 your interlocutor is to blame if he misunderstands. <>not seem different from {ledo ka ce'u xunre} (to be on the safe side), wh= ich >is also unexplained, but in the same way. No. It is unexplained in a different way.=A0 leka do xunre specifically=20 associates do with filling the x1 of xunre; ledo ka ce'u xunre says=20 absolutely nothing about a relationship between do and x1 or with any other= =20 specific or modal place in the xunre predicate.> In so far as one can differentiate to lacks of explanation, I don't think=20 this holds, since the little explanation there is of the form here {ledo ka= }=20 precisely associates the {do} with the {ce'u}, in the absence of a second=20 place on {ka} In the context of what can be dropped in colloquial use, there is no=20 distinction. The "important" for places is abstracted from the aprticular= =20 occasion of use. The last point, at least, just about everyone would agree= =20 with. xod (And) <> 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. All around, this is the simplest and most elegant solution: ditch ka, use du'u and some number of ce'u. But what about the kam- rafsi? It's too useful to abandon.> This is just plan 1 again, with the loss of {ka}. It actually makes more=20 sense (though little enough) to ditch {du'u}, which solves the {kam-} probl= em. --part1_fb.18af0317.28b43c0a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 8/21/2001 1:31:47 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
lojbab@lojban.org writes:



To me the archetypal ka h= as holes in ALL places=20
that are unfilled, including all plausible modal places.  Others s= eem to=20
think that the archetype has one and only one hole which is filled by t= he=20
ce'u and indicates what the property is "about".

I will agree that most places where a ka abstraction is used in a sumti= are=20
single-hole examples, but I don't want the assumption that this is alwa= ys=20
the case to hold because I'm pretty sure that exceptions can and will o= ccur.

>So, the disagreement is about whether the {ce'u} must always be wri= tten in
>and, if not, where the implicit one is.

You use singular ce'u here, begging my issue.




I agree, but was trying not to blow too many minds (which were having=20
problems with ONE {ce'u}) , cf pc & cowan on {le ka prami}

<How about 3) Like most aspects of the language, features which are = implicit=20
are optional with no guarantee of a "rule" that identifies the=20
preference.=A0 After all there is no "rule" for what tense applies in a= =20
tenseless bridi, or what number applies in a non-quantified sumti.=A0 T= here=20
are *conventions* for some cases but for the most part these convention= s=20
are understood to be less-than-binding over all usages.

Conventions, being non-binding, are best when they are descriptive of=20
normal use and not prescription that contradict normal usage from befor= e=20
the convention.>

Well, some would say that conventions precisely ARE binding, since that= is=20
what they were introduced to do.  In any case, the issue is how to= be precise=20
and still not hopelessly verbose.
I understand that 3) represent the current Lojban Central position and= =20
recognize its advantage, namely, that you can use any convention you wa= nt and=20
your interlocutor is to blame if he misunderstands.

<>not seem different from {ledo ka ce'u xunre} (to be on the safe= side), which
>is also unexplained, but in the same way.

No. It is unexplained in a different way.=A0 leka do xunre specifically= =20
associates do with filling the x1 of xunre; ledo ka ce'u xunre says=20
absolutely nothing about a relationship between do and x1 or with any o= ther=20
specific or modal place in the xunre predicate.>

In so far as one can differentiate to lacks of explanation, I don't thi= nk=20
this holds, since the little explanation there is of the form here {led= o ka}=20
precisely associates the {do} with the {ce'u}, in the absence of a seco= nd=20
place on {ka}

<You are failing to distinguish between "interesting" and "important= ".=A0 All=20
of the places of a predicate are "important" by definition or they woul= d=20
not be part of the place structure, but some are not interesting becaus= e=20
common sense or context is sufficient to identify the value, or because= ,=20
while we recognize that there has to be a value, we really aren't will = to=20
think about what it is.

ce'u needs to be stated explicitly when the listener isn't likely to fi= gure=20
it out from context.>

In the context of what can be dropped in colloquial use, there is no=20
distinction.  The "important" for places is abstracted from the ap= rticular=20
occasion of use.  The last point, at least, just about everyone wo= uld agree=20
with.

xod (And)
<> Since {du'u} doesn't guarantee the presence of a covert or ove= rt
> 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.



All around, this is the simplest and most elegant solution: ditch ka, u= se
du'u and some number of ce'u. But what about the kam- rafsi? It's too
useful to abandon.>

This is just plan 1 again, with the loss of {ka}.  It actually mak= es more=20
sense (though little enough) to ditch {du'u}, which solves the {kam-} p= roblem.

--part1_fb.18af0317.28b43c0a_boundary--