From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Aug 23 05:31:57 2001
Return-Path: <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>
X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 12:31:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 78965 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 12:30:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 12:30:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3)
  by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 12:30:59 -0000
Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer);
  Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:09:36 +0100
Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk
  with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:36:30 +0100
Message-Id: <sb8506de.067@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:36:20 +0100
To: lojban <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: 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 <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>

Xorxes:
#la and cusku di'e
#
#>The convention would be:
#>
#>1. inside ka: fill every logically-present but syntactically absent place=
=20
#>with ce'u
#
#I don't like this at all. What is a "logically-present" place?
#I want {le ka ce'u dunda} to be the property of being a giver,
#and {le ka dunda ce'u} the property of being a gift.

But then to talk about (platonic) Going, you'd have to have
ce'u ce'u ce'u ce;u ce'u klama, which is very longwinded.

OTOH, by my excellent scheme:

ka prami =3D Love
ka zo'e prami (ce'u) =3D du'u (zo'e) prami ce'u =3D belovedness
ka (ce'u) prami zo'e =3D du'u ce'u prami (zo'e) =3D loverhood

So you can have things exactly as you want them, so long
as you use du'u rather than ka.

As for what is a logically present place, this issue exists
independently of ce'u, in regard to zo'e. I'd take a logically
present but syntactically absent place to be an empty
untagged sumti place.

>poi'i [[ [NU] ] x1 is such that poi'i abstraction is true; x1 binds ke'a=20
>within the abstraction.

Would it be equivalent to {du da poi}?

Yes, AFAICS.

--And.