From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Aug 22 08:45:04 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 15:45:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 18784 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 15:41:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 15:41:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 15:41:38 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:20:15 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:47:09 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:46:36 +0100 To: lojban Subject: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du'u Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" 08/22/01 06:28am >>> #At 02:26 AM 8/22/01 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: #>The only time I remember needing 2-ce'u properties is with {simxu}, #>does anybody else have an example where one would need them? #>(I don't mean some statement about the language itself, but #>something one might say in everyday talk.) Any 3-ce'u at all? # #This sounds like the death knell of x2 for ka, if there exists a known ka= =20 #(simxu) that it could not apply to. The "x2 of ka" proposal presupposes that 2+-ce'u properties are expressed using du'u, with du'u basically taking over the entire function of old ka. However, I do NOT support this "x2 of ka" proposal. I support formalizing your idea that all logically-present but syntactically absent sumti within = a ka are filled with ce'u, so {ka klama} simply means "Going", "platonic Going". I'd been putting off saying this because traffic is so hectic, but I had better say it here, so it gets taken into account. The convention would be: 1. inside ka: fill every logically-present but syntactically absent place w= ith ce'u 2. outside ka: fill every logically-present but syntactically absent place = with zo'e 3. (1-2) constitute the ONLY difference between ka and du'u (except for the= godawful x2 of du'u which I wish had Died In The A). I oppose "se ka", as I said, and I also withdraw my proposed {kai'i}, which= {se ka} was suggested as an alternative to. Instead I propose poi'i [[ [NU] ] x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds ke'a wi= thin the abstraction.=20 ---And.