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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:34:50 EDT

In a message dated 8/21/2001 1:31:47 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> To me the archetypal ka has holes in ALL places 
> that are unfilled, including all plausible modal places. Others seem to 
> think that the archetype has one and only one hole which is filled by the 
> 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 
> single-hole examples, but I don't want the assumption that this is always 
> the case to hold because I'm pretty sure that exceptions can and will occur.
> 
> >So, the disagreement is about whether the {ce'u} must always be written 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 
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 
are optional with no guarantee of a "rule" that identifies the 
preference.  After all there is no "rule" for what tense applies in a 
tenseless bridi, or what number applies in a non-quantified sumti.  There 
are *conventions* for some cases but for the most part these conventions 
are understood to be less-than-binding over all usages.

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

Well, some would say that conventions precisely ARE binding, since that is 
what they were introduced to do. In any case, the issue is how to be precise 
and still not hopelessly verbose.
I understand that 3) represent the current Lojban Central position and 
recognize its advantage, namely, that you can use any convention you want and 
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.  leka do xunre specifically 
associates do with filling the x1 of xunre; ledo ka ce'u xunre says 
absolutely nothing about a relationship between do and x1 or with any other 
specific or modal place in the xunre predicate.>

In so far as one can differentiate to lacks of explanation, I don't think 
this holds, since the little explanation there is of the form here {ledo ka} 
precisely associates the {do} with the {ce'u}, in the absence of a second 
place on {ka}

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

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

In the context of what can be dropped in colloquial use, there is no 
distinction. The "important" for places is abstracted from the aprticular 
occasion of use. The last point, at least, just about everyone would agree 
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 
sense (though little enough) to ditch {du'u}, which solves the {kam-} problem.