Re: multiple ce`u (was: Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei,

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

John:
> > I forgot the possibility of this in my reply to Lojbab. I must
> > say, I have no idea what, say, {le ka ce`u melbi ce`u zo`e zo`e}
> > means.
>
> Why, it means:  "the abstract object which is a dyadic relationship
> between a beautiful object and those who find it so, relative to
> some understood aspect of beauty and some understood aesthetic
> standard."  Simple.  :-)

Yes, it is simple. I realized what it would mean, shortly after
posting that.

> By counting the "ce'u"s, we find out what the arity (or adicity)
> of the relationship is.  All the other places are filled by the
> speaker's intent.  (Of course, it's all the same whether the
> bridi ends "zo'e zo'e" or just "").
>
> > I also find it rather worrying that every single empty sumti
> > within a ka clause could in principle be filled with a ce`u.
> > And the only way to disambiguate is to fill every single
> > sumti! Bloody hell!
>
> The only way to disambiguate *any* bridi, subordinate or top level,
> is to fill every single sumti.  Otherwise, the speaker depends on
> the listener's goodwill (or the listener depends on telepathy,
> as you will).

But normally it's not as bad as that. For example, {no da} is
not, or at least once upon a time, was not a permissible filler
for an omitted sumti. In general, every empty sumti is
guaranteed to be fillable by {su`o da} (though the scope is not
always predictable) such that the {su`o da} version is true
if the version with the intended filler is true.

So although omitted sumti leave the intended bridi underspecified,
the limits of range of possible interpretations are quite firmly
constrained.

But within a ka abstraction this doesn't apply, as every omitted
sumti could be a ce`u.

--And