Re: forward from Greg Higley

["Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" <lcrocker@MERCURY.COLOSSUS.NET>]

>  >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.

I wouldn't say "default"; the refgram neither states nor implies that.
Perhaps "is likely to be interpreted/emphasized that way".

And while I agree that naked {ka broda} doesn't mean much without a
{ce'u} or other sumti around, we can't imply the existence of a ce'u
because other sumti might be meaningful.  From the examples, {le ka
do xunre} is the property of your being red, but not necessarily any
particular instance {nu} of it at any particular time or place, so
there's no {ce'u} there anywhere.  Similarly with {ni}; if sumti are
filled in, one cannot assume a {ce'u} anywhere.  But with them empty,
one will probably be implied at first position, but not by any rule.

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC