From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 15 18:31:24 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.54)
	id 1En5NC-0002aB-Mk
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:31:06 -0800
Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.54)
	id 1En5NB-0002a3-Jb
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:31:06 -0800
Received: (qmail 95752 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Dec 2005 02:31:03 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;
  h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
  b=nZuvEbMpxGd/GaUA8aL0l9mwEOTxchUQDQmID+NOoF8dDqCM51rod5P9YKcvHD8FlJkQnlWTrhaM31hSmscisOCjInRaXhPcLYj7FbLXgn7UF7LDBHIcQX2nqmJ1f0y+pl6Ez7xzBROEXPPzOS6Edy76x8g4MJK9UiwqXu6Y+u4=  ;
Message-ID: <20051216023103.95750.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Received: from [70.230.168.167] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:31:03 PST
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:31:03 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma}
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <925d17560512151725l7f5ff303laa1821bc78a516a8@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-archive-position: 10908
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/15/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Can't argue with any of this but I still
> think
> > that a couple of words that fit between
> argument
> > and predicate (a only slightly restricted UI)
> > would be nice to have
> 
> Anywhere between the first sumti and the
> selbri? Would it apply
> only to the x1?

After (probably immediately) first arguments,
immediately before others but also in compound
predicates at the appropriate places around the
predicate (hard to state clearly which probably
means it still has bugs in it).  So, the only
times that the ro-lVi doesn't work is with a
single argument being predicated of differently
by two predicates (or, for that matter, by one,
though that is a little hard to imagine) and the
predication internal to a description.  The
second of these is the more common one and so
more likely to have a problem (but admittedly
"more likely" does not add up to "likely") and
the solution you propose is more complicated than
even the relative rarity suggests (especially
since the rarer case as a relatively simple
solution).  I suspect that any solution is going
to have some problems but overall the UIish one
seems simplest and is more uniform (and has fewer
odd ontological suggestions).  Plus I like
getting those cmavos back. Maybe those converters
- from whatever to masses and to sets and out of
those -- could be used in a different way. I
think your use of {lu'o} in accounting for a
collective internal predicate is about the first
time I have seen one used.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.