From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Book gives explicit examples of ce'u being assumed to be in non-x1 and filled-x1 places. Does it give such examples of ke'a being elided and assumed to be elsewhere than x1? In usage I have never seen anyone pull either stunt. They elide ce'u and ke'a when in x1, and add it when not in x1, and really don't stick the sumti in a place that's already filled, something I don't understand but would use "poi ce'u" if I did.--xod

Chapter 8, 1.8) tu poi le mlatu pu lacpu cu ratcu That-distant-thing which the cat drags is-a-rat Wouldn't that be which the cat dragged?

I see what you're doing, but I judge this to really be meaningless because there is no ke'a, express or implied. How do I know tu is the rat and not the cat? Only by reading the English. You need zi'e. --xod

(One week later) OK I see it there in the book. It is justified because there is a finger gesture going along with the sentence. I still don't like it, and have never seen it, and will not use it. --xod

  • The ke'a-convention is in place; and that's how the convention reads it. Such usage certainly predates the refgramm, and is obviously inherited from English. But to say it is meaningless is itself meaningless: the refgramm says it, and says how it is to be interpreted, so it is by definition (literally) correct Lojban. Further, to interpret a full sumti as being the equivalent of ke'a seems to me decidedly odd. -- nitcion.

Well, we have whacked on the question of ce'u being inferred in full sumti ad nauseam, but now la xod seems to be suggesting that ke'a might colocate with an express sumti. What is that supposed to mean?

What does le ka mi prami mean, if ce'u is elided from prami1? It is a phrase doing double duty; {le ka ce'u prami kei noi mi ckaji ke'a} (which is a lot clearer than the other offered interpretation of {le ka ce'u prami kei pe mi}, which doesn't boldly state the same. Context is needed). Similarly, a yahoo might be tempted to do likewise with ke'a, but it's too early in the morning for me to try such a perverse usage. --xod

Erm, um (and this belongs to ce'u, I know) --- I have the impression that the clear majority of Lojbanists has strepitously rejected {le ka mi prami} = {le ka ce'u prami kei noi mi ckaji ke'a}. This interpretation is the "natural" one ("the quality of me loving" ~= "loving as a characteristic of me"), and the one that had been in use in the past (which is why I was trying to make it work with ce'u). But after the outcry, and the resulting cleanup ({ka} means the {ce'u} must be unfilled, else it turns into {du'u}), I don't see such an interpretation coming back. -- nitcion

Non-x1 ke'a makes perfect sense to me, and I have used it. See [1] - mi di'i roldei finti bau le glico pa se cpinyctusku ja ke ckasu pinka noi zo balfi'e cmene for example, with ke'a implied at the end. mi'e jezrax

I can't figure out what people are arguing above. xod, do you still believe that tu poi le mlatu pu lacpu cu ratcu has no implied ke'a? It's quite clear that it goes after lacpu (the first unfilled place). --rab.spir