Return-Path: Message-Id: <9110141345.AA25564@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Mon Oct 14 10:09:09 1991 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: BAI places X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: jimc%MATH.UCLA.EDU@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu's message of Fri, 11 Oct 1991 13:46:16 -0700 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 14 10:09:09 1991 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN This is, to be sure, a hairy point. I strongly believe that attaching *all* possible BAI and FIhO phrases to all bridi is a Bad Thing. This would amount to talking about everything in the universe whenever you say anything. An interesting philosophy, but not the way to build a language. You might as well have only one phrase: "fasnu" ("Something happens", roughly). And considering that you're saying infinitely many things when you say anything, I think someone could probably cook up a way of looking at things such that some of these shadow phrases wind up contradicting one another: NOT what you want for a logical language (It may not be as bad as that; it may be impossible to get clear-cut contradiction, owing to the broad meaning of "zo'e"). I'd prefer the viewpoint that a bridi has on it only its numbered places, whether filled or ellipsized, but I admit that this is unsatisfying, as some BAI phrases really do seem to belong on brivla that don't have them. Still, in this case, I think I'd rather prefer having less rather than more. See, I don't like the idea of saying, "These BAI are special; they're on all bridi. These are only there if you put them there." That sounds too random and irregular. It's treading dangerous ground. ~mark