From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Aug 23 06:56:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: Lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 13:56:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 17463 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 13:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 13:53:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 13:53:50 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:32:23 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:59:17 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:59:17 +0100 To: Lojban Subject: A revised ce'u proposal involving si'o Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta OK. I see that people want to be able to talk about properties and be able = to omit the ce'u. This is incompatible with my last proposal. So here's ano= ther one. du'u-ka-si'o proposal 1. {du'u}, {ka} and {si'o} are logically identical. They all express n-adic= relations, where n is the number of overt or covert ce'u within the abstra= ction. 2. The difference between {du'u} {ka} and {si'o} is grammatical, and concer= ns the interpretation of elided sumti. 3. In du'u abstractions, all elided sumti are interpreted as zo'e. 4. In ka abstractions that contain one or more overt ce'u, all elided sumti are interpreted as zo'e. 5. In ka abstractions that contain no overt ce'u, exactly one elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u and the rest are interpreted as zo'e. 6. In a ka abstraction in which an elided sumti is interpreted as ce'u, the= sumti is normally the leftmost empty sumti, unless overridden by strong co= ntextual factors. 7. In si'o abstractions, all elided sumti are interpreted as ce'u. What I've done is shift my earlier proposals for ka onto si'o, and then for ka try to make explicit what people want. I certainly don't agree that to talk unambiguously about a se bridi -- the = intension of a selbri -- it should be necessary to use as many overt ce'u as the se bridi has arguments. It's for this reason that I propose (7). --And.