RE: proposals regarding abstractors

la .i,n cusku di'e

> John:
> > Under Change 15, you do not need a separate cmavo:  "le du'u broda" is the
> > claim that broda, and "le se du'u broda" is the assertion that broda.
> > (Without Change 15, you need "le se ke du'u broda".)  We have never exploited
> > the x2 places of the abstractions before, but it is now easy to do so.
> 
> Say again?  I'm afraid the distinction between "claim" and "assertion"
> is lost on me.
> 
> > x1 is the predication [bridi] expressed in sentence x2
> 
> This isn't much clearer to me.
> But from the way I've seen {du'u} used, {le du'u broda}
> must be the "(putative) fact", whereas {le se du'u broda}
> is the text, the combination of words.  Does this make
> {le du'u broda} the same as {la'e le se du'u broda}?

I was a bit muddleheaded when I wrote this, but yes, your reading is
correct.  However, "se du'u" will work in selbri contexts, whereas
"la'e" is confined to sumti contexts.  The intent is to contrast the
abstract proposition with the concrete realization of that proposition.

> And what does this mean for {ko'a cusku lu broda li'u}?

It is simply a fact of the language that the x2 place of cusku is a text.
If the place structure sentence needs to be reworded to express this,
so be it.

-- 
John Cowan	cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban.