From nicholas@uci.edu Wed Aug 22 14:19:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: nicholas@uci.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 21:19:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 78923 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 21:11:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 21:11:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e4e.oac.uci.edu) (128.200.222.10) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 21:11:10 -0000 Received: from localhost (nicholas@localhost) by e4e.oac.uci.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04315; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:11:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: e4e.oac.uci.edu: nicholas owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:11:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: To: John Cowan Cc: Subject: Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du' In-Reply-To: <3B841BB2.8040800@reutershealth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Nick NICHOLAS On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, John Cowan wrote: > > So "le ka ce'u xendo" means by default "le ka ce'u xunre ce'u ce'u"? No, > > that's not what you want. > Ah. I was implicitly assuming that this rule was to apply > only in the absence of explicit ce'us. Looks baroque to me, but that doesn't count for much. So, if I say {le ka xendo}, accordingly to this, I'm not speaking about being kind, or receiving kindness, or being a standard for kindness, but some protean kindness-thing which is the property of no single entity, but of every entity involved. Which doesn't sound like much of a property to me (as in, property *of* something); for all the argling that has gone on, I still don't see how *every* place is ce'u, just like *no* place is ce'u, is any different... from du'u. I mean, I know Lojbab has said this: >Since du'u arose as a manifestation of a specific >bridi relationship between the bridi and its expression as le sedu'u, I >find it hard to think of du'u as a generalization. du'u deals with >concrete and filled in bridi, whereas ka without ce'u is the one way in >which we can talk about what makes a bridi true in an *abstract* sense >WITHOUT filling in all the places, while still acknowledging that they >exist. I thus think of du'u as much more akin to nu than to ka. But I'm sorry; the places of the x1 (and x2) of du'u can still have zo'e in them. So I don't see what's so essentially concrete about du'u. If you're so concerned about {du'u} being anchored to a concrete linguistic expression, I'd rather you used {du'u ... kei be zi'o}, than make {ka} a property of everything and anything. Could someone please provide a context or an example in which this proposed distinction between Lojbab's version of {ka} and {du'u} makes a difference in language use? If we're going to blow up {le ka xendo} like this, I'd like to know what precisely we're gaining. -- == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == == Nick Nicholas, Breathing {le'o ko na rivbi fi'inai palci je tolvri danlu} nicholas@uci.edu -- Miguel Cervantes tr. Jorge LLambias