Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 10:37:49 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141011143749.GD23876@gonzales>
References: <20141008015245.GB17866@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2fokLXQ3queR+jP88xaoxMPQBQUojsAOZrF49hKTY=-LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141009010533.GF18854@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2erLDXJy5jOAx7--+vamH9brWJNSH2K82ACJgKbDVvD8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141009233031.GC1592@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2cpdLRm8AOtHjADMKMP10uFu_N4mfddsP0-q07YnFzSLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141010234033.GG22868@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dXyFzuCiv3g18B2poF3YZwE4RQFTTvdfXGVXuycWmLyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141011021201.GH22868@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c_S3hC5K3eqSkmFjzZT4F5BRFLJ_+X44N212sygj_VGw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/unnNtmY43mpUSKx"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2c_S3hC5K3eqSkmFjzZT4F5BRFLJ_+X44N212sygj_VGw@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: mifra
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=neutral
 (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--/unnNtmY43mpUSKx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2014-10-11 at 08:58 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > Argh. Then yes, it looks like {tu'a} is in LAhE only syntactically, not
> > semantically, and must be handled separately.
>=20
> For non-condensed forms (by "condensed form" I mean those forms that use a
> bridi operator in an argument position) "tu'a" behaves like the other
> LAhEs. It's the condensed forms that need special treatment, because "tu'=
a"
> introduces an additional level of subordinate clause.

Yes.

> > (So then tu'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the rest of
> > LAhE should get it...)
>=20
> Well...

By which you mean it kind of still is, because it's best to minimise
what irregularity we're forced into? Perhaps so. No longer a strong
argument, anyway.


Regarding {lo}: could it be the "down" operator which extracts a kind
=66rom a predicate? I'm not seeing any other options, if it is "definite"
and if \iota is out.

--/unnNtmY43mpUSKx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlQ5QL0ACgkQULC7OLX7LNZ8AgCg6fQiDf5Fgbdmrp91kS4241fN
nGUAnRYOvadYSW6H6gYLp9NqT1tTZiQJ
=Igdb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/unnNtmY43mpUSKx--