Subject: Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du'u

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:10:05 -0400

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 <[email-masked]>
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