⟨ka⟩ versus ⟨du'u⟩, and ⟨ce'u⟩ and ⟨zo'e⟩: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replace - "jbocre: k" to "k")
m (Text replace - "jbocre: d" to "d")
Line 8: Line 8:
----
----
*[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]:
*[[User:Nick Nicholas|nitcion]]:
*:Please let this [[jbocre: dies in the arse|die in the arse]]. (There, And, that better? :-) ) Under this proposal, '''ka ce'u klama''' means '''ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u''' (or in fact, '''ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u pi'o ce'u bai ce'u ni'a ce'u cazi ce'u fi'o ganxo ce'u...'''). If I want to speak of going as a property of just the goer, I should not have to say '''ka ce'u klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e'''. The sensible default is not two '''ce'u''', or a zillion '''ce'u''', but a single '''ce'u'''.
*:Please let this [[dies in the arse|die in the arse]]. (There, And, that better? :-) ) Under this proposal, '''ka ce'u klama''' means '''ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u''' (or in fact, '''ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u pi'o ce'u bai ce'u ni'a ce'u cazi ce'u fi'o ganxo ce'u...'''). If I want to speak of going as a property of just the goer, I should not have to say '''ka ce'u klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e'''. The sensible default is not two '''ce'u''', or a zillion '''ce'u''', but a single '''ce'u'''.
**[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
**[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]:
**:I will let it die in the arse. You don't realize that '''du'u ce'u klama kei''' would express the property of goerhood, but it remains the case that under the above proposals there is no way that '''ka klama kei''' or '''du'u klama kei''' can express the property of goerhood. And that's what people want.
**:I will let it die in the arse. You don't realize that '''du'u ce'u klama kei''' would express the property of goerhood, but it remains the case that under the above proposals there is no way that '''ka klama kei''' or '''du'u klama kei''' can express the property of goerhood. And that's what people want.
**:Therefore, see [[ka, du'u, si'o, ce'u, zo'e|ka, du'u, si'o, ce'u, zo'e]] for a revised proposal.
**:Therefore, see [[ka, du'u, si'o, ce'u, zo'e|ka, du'u, si'o, ce'u, zo'e]] for a revised proposal.

Revision as of 12:21, 23 March 2014

  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 x2 of du'u which, in usage at least, seems dead).
  • But the x2 of cusku is a sedu'u: mi cusku sedu'u la .and. srera
    • And Rosta:
      "I am an expresser type of the sentence that says And errs"?? OK, only joshing. OK, maybe it does get used then. Doesn't deserve to, though :-(

  • nitcion:
    Please let this die in the arse. (There, And, that better? :-) ) Under this proposal, ka ce'u klama means ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u (or in fact, ka ce'u klama ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u pi'o ce'u bai ce'u ni'a ce'u cazi ce'u fi'o ganxo ce'u...). If I want to speak of going as a property of just the goer, I should not have to say ka ce'u klama zo'e zo'e zo'e zo'e. The sensible default is not two ce'u, or a zillion ce'u, but a single ce'u.
    • And Rosta:
      I will let it die in the arse. You don't realize that du'u ce'u klama kei would express the property of goerhood, but it remains the case that under the above proposals there is no way that ka klama kei or du'u klama kei can express the property of goerhood. And that's what people want.
      Therefore, see ka, du'u, si'o, ce'u, zo'e for a revised proposal.