History: ce'u

If you have more than ten sublists, the wiki breaks.

On another note, if people ever stop editing this page, it should be reorganized.

The page hasn't been edited (before now) since August, and it does seem to have some interesting stuff that could be dug out. Any volunteers to reorganize it?

OK, sorry, d00d. I agree, but I think it best it not be me that do so. Also, um, sorry about the ce'u 1 and ce'u 2 I panickedly created; could whoever's last to turn out the lights refactor any changes from them back here? Again, apologies for losing my composure on this. --- Nick Nicholas

As a further note, I accept that I was wrong about this. — nitcion

---

When absent from a ka phrase, ce'u is presumed to occupy the x1 of that phrase's selbri --- whether it is already occupied by another place or not. Thus: le ka mi xendo = le ka mi no'u ce'u xendo, not le ka mi xendo ce'u. In this, ce'u differs from ke'a.

WHAT? First time I see this. Is le ka mi no'u ce'u xendo in any way different from le du'u mi xendo or le nu mi xendo?

• Yes, I, Nick Nicholas, am responsible for (a) formulating this, and (b) putting this in the lessons; and there is no way it can be anything but this. I am comparing not ka to nu, but ce'u to ke'a. It is clearly untenable to suggest that ce'u occupy the first empty place, like ke'a does. I honestly don't see what's controversial about this.
  • What is so untenable about la djan zmadu la pol le ka mi xendo?
    • I sure had to do a double-take on it. What's not so much less difficult to parse about la djan. zmadu la pol. le ka se xendo mi?
      • Nothing. I find them both equally acceptable.
  • In what context would you use le ka mi no'u ce'u xendo?
    • How else would you say "He appreciated my kindness"? ko'a nelci le ka mi xendo.
      • There's no ce'u there, it might as well be nu instead of ka.
        • That's specious: there is a ce'u there, it's just elided. Or are you saying one cannot like properties?
          • It sure should be nu instead of ka. It is a mistake to always translate -ness as ka. Just because a word is an adjective in English does not mean that it should be always abstracted with ka in Lojban. One can like properties in the same way one can like numbers, sets or propositions, they are not the kind of things people tend to like.
            • Still can't agree. I do not just like the abstraction; I like that the abstraction holds for a particular entity.
              • That's nu then.

-> I like you being beaten by me

• Whether you call it nu, ka, or su'u kei lenu lunbe dansu is irrelevant --- the point is that you can need ce'u in this context, and it would be nice to have a default interpretation for elided ce'u, just as with ke'a.
  • I like the same default interpretation as for ke'a, I don't see why we need to complicate it.
    • *sigh* Because that would mean that le ka mi xlura does not mean 'my influence', but 'the susceptibility of others to me'. Which breaks usage and common sense. I will not agree on this, so we might as well take it to arbitration...
      • A better rendering of le ka mi xlura might be my influencing them, a property that someone else might have. It certainly does not braek common sense. As for usage, usage of ka was pretty chaotic before we came to understand it better.
    • Arbitration is not acceptable. The traditional arbitrators are biased.

BTW, another use of ce'u is with li'i, which I think should also always have an implicit one like ka. As in mi nelci le li'i ce'u jinga fi do.

I don't think so. An experience is pretty individual specific. I'm not sure of what an "experience of beating you" might be, divorced from an experiencer. (Then again, even better is to just replace "li'i" with "nu"

ro da nelci le li'i ce'u jinga fi do. It is precisely because it cannot be divorced from the experiencer that the place needs to be a ce'u, otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell which place corresponds to the experiencer.

What's the difference between that and ro da nelci le li'i da jinga fi do?

I don't know whether le li'i da jinga fi do is supposed to be da's or do's experience.

How can you like someone else's experience? If you like their experiencing it, then say that: ro da nelci le nu do lifri le li'i da jinga fi do.

He means it like this: in "li'i klama", is this is experience of being a le klama, a le selkla, a le terkla, etc? I agree, ce'u can work with li'i and is a good thing. An experiencer takes a sumti slot, not a whole bridi. --xod

Okay, whatever. I really think that we should just drop li'i and si'o anyway; you won't find me using them.

---

Whoa! John Cowan very recently made it clear on the mailing list, that there is NO implicit assumption that ce'u goes in the first place, or the first empty place. He said the proper location should be guessed from context. If that bothers you, swear an oath to always write your ce'us, and too bad about the text that's already been written. --xod

That's no different from the status of ke'a; it too is properly meant to be glorked from context, and that it should go to the first empty x1 is merely a convention, and a defeasible one at that:

Like any sumti, ``ke'a'' can be omitted. The usual presumption in that case is that it then falls into the x1 place ...

However, ``ke'a'' can be omitted if it is clear to the listener that it belongs in some place other than x1 (http://www.lojban.org/files/reference-grammar/chap8.html)

I'm just saying we should have a similarly non-binding convention for ce'u, and x1 makes a lot more sense for that than first empty. Nothing forbids you using ke'a for second empty, and likewise nothing forbids you saying la djan zmadu la pol le ka mi xendo. I think that's bucking the trend of what most people have been using for both, and is thus a smidgeon uncooperative, but that's why this is being proposed as a convention, not a rule. — mi'e nitcion

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

-> ke'a

Course, that matches English, and I'm surprised you say you haven't seen ke'a=x2 (I assume you meant "elsewhere than x1".) I'm sure I pulled that stunt plenty in my day. And as for sticking ce'u in a place already filled, people have already been doing that, for the simple reason that almost noone knows ce'u exists. Are saying people are not saying le ka mi xendo for 'my kindness'? And again, ke'a and ce'u are not comparable: ke'a is anaphoric, so there's no point filling its slot with another sumti --- ce'u is not anaphoric, and you can fill in its value whenever you want without making it any less of a property. Indeed, you have to be able to fill in its value, or it's ultimately useless.

You can fill in its value with the selbri, i.e. ko'a mutce le ka ce'u xendo and ko'a ckaji le ka jinga fi ce'u. A property by itself is pretty meaningless, I mean, what's le ka ce'u te jinga by itself. It doesn't have a truth value, and it doesn't occur. It just sits in people's minds, waiting to become part of a bridi, where the ce'u will get filled in according to the meaning of the selbri. Sorry? ce'u is a sumti, so when it does become part of a bridi, it gets filled with a sumti value: ko'a mutce le ka ce'u no'u ko'a xendo. At least, that's how lambda variables work... Well, I'm sure you can walk all over me as far a lambda variables go, but it's contrary to my understanding of properties. Still, I don't think it makes much of a difference in this case.

Now I'm wondering when this gets taken to the list...

Don't take it to the list! There's too much traffic there as it is.

Here we have another irreconcilable difference between us. I think it is irresponsible not to maintain traffic between the Wiki and the list; the inevitable outcome of that is that the Wiki and the list evolve distinct linguistic norms. In any case, too late , and I will now shut up about this topic; I've said more than enough — nitcion.

I was just commenting on the amount of messages on the list, not on whether there should be cross-traffic. OK, sorry about misunderstanding. Did not forward to list after all, anyway...

OK, I understand le ka mi xendo. With ce'u, is this le ka mi ce'u xendo? What is the grammar of ce'u, can this work? --xod

[Not adding content, only clarification, not adding content, only clarification...] No: ce'u is a sumti like ke'a. — nitcion

I seem to remember seeing somewhere in the old archives that ce'u was originally a PA. How did that work?

The original idea was that as su'o da means E(x) and roda means A(x),
so ce'u da would mean lambda(X). Lambda is not really a quantifier,
of course, but it does bind a variable. Under that old usage,
self-love (see mailing list) would be "ka ce'u da prami da".
This was rejected, on just what grounds I don't recall. --John Cowan

So then, always using ce'u, how do I express le ka mi xendo?

Well, I've already said how I express it, so you'd best wait for someone else to answer.... — nitcion

If you have to use ce'u and ka, le ka mi zo'u ce'u xendo is probably the lesser of evils. nitcion would have you say le ka mi no'u ce'u xendo. Using the recently proposed x2 of ka, it could be le ka ce'u xendo kei be mi. Personally, I doubt that it's really a property that you want here. — Adam

You express it as le nu mi xendo. --John Cowan