>As far as I understand, it is a general rule of Lojban that using SE
>does not change the meaning of a bridi. Each sumti place is 'equal'.
A better way to say it is that using SE does not change the
meaning of a selbri. The bridi often does change, because the
order of the sumti is relevant when there are quantifiers. For example:
ro prenu cu prami lo prenu
Everybody loves somebody.
means something quite different from:
lo prenu cu se prami ro prenu
There is someone who is loved by everyone.
The selbri means exactly the same in both cases, but the two
bridi mean different things.
>Thus
>
>{le prenu cu klama le zdani}
>the person goes to the house
>
>is Lojbanically the same as
>
>{le zdani cu se klama le prenu}
>the house is-the-destination-of the person
In your example there is no problem because the two sumti
are of singular referent type, and for those any order works.
>I'm sure that it could be argued that there are differences in emphasis
>between these two sentences, but emphasis is not my point. The
>sentences have the same _essential_ meaning. If this is true, what can
>we make of the following two abstractions?
>
>{ka le prenu cu klama le zdani}
>
>{ka le zdani cu se klama le prenu}
They both would mean to me: The property of being gone from,
by the person to the home.
More explicitly: {ka le prenu le zdani ce'u klama}
You can't have a {ka} without an explicit or implicit {ce'u}.
What would it mean, other than {nu}? If you don't agree that
a property must always be a property _of_ something, how
do you say "property" in Lojban?
>I would argue that NO ONE is using {ka} (or {ni}) in this way.
If you mean without an at least implicit ce'u, I agree.
{ka} doesn't make sense without it.
>It is
>being used not as if it abstracted the bridi as a whole (which I would
>argue is almost totally useless), but as if it abstracted the
>relationship between the 'physically' first sumti and the selbri.
Right. The default place for {ce'u} is the first open slot.
>Most
>lojbanists would use {ka ckule} and {ka se ckule} in very different
>ways. But again, the rules say that they are the same -- otherwise we
>are 'favoring' the first sumti over the others.
Yes, in a sense we are.
co'o mi'e xorxes