From jcowan@reutershealth.com Wed Aug 22 09:20:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 16:20:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 58663 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 16:10:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 16:10:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 16:10:59 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[192.168.3.11]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18108; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3B83D95D.20703@reutershealth.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:10:05 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010801 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: And Rosta Cc: lojban Subject: Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du'u References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan And Rosta wrote: > 1. inside ka: fill every logically-present but syntactically absent > place with ce'u Certainly a plausible interpretation rule. > 2. outside ka: fill every logically-present but syntactically absent > place with zo'e No problem. > 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). Indeed. I favor, as I said, using lu'e le du'u > poi'i [[ [NU] ] x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds > ke'a within the abstraction. Can you provide a concrete example of such an abstraction, and an x1 that would make it true? I don't understand this. -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel