From xod@sixgirls.org Wed Aug 22 15:13:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 22:13:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 46166 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 22:12:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 22:12:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 22:12:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7MMCJT20889 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:12:18 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban Subject: ce'u co'e zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e (was: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du'u In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > 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 with > 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). So ka is no longer a subset of du'u? What if I really want le ka ce'u klama? Do I have to say le ka klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e? ---- We have just about converged upon a consensus that: 1. ka without explicit ce'u is confusing. 2. ka always needs at least one ce'u, so write it! 3. ka is identical to du'u if you write all the ce'u explicitly. > > 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 I don't need seka either. That is an extra claim that can be handled with noi. ----- "It is not enough that an article is new and useful. The Constitution never sanctioned the patenting of gadgets. [...] It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures." -- Supreme Court Justice Douglas, 1950