From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Mon Feb 10 16:25:46 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 10 Feb 92 16:25 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA09126; Mon, 10 Feb 92 14:46:33 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA27414; Mon, 10 Feb 92 14:34:13 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA19844; Mon, 10 Feb 92 14:34:08 EST Message-Id: <9202101934.AA19844@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 0090; Mon, 10 Feb 92 14:32:45 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7808; Mon, 10 Feb 92 14:31:53 EST Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1992 14:29:02 EST Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: proposed extension to grammar X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: And Rosta's message of Mon, 10 Feb 1992 18:42:39 +0000 Status: RO And writes: >One of Colin's postings (quoted below) surprised me. It combines cmene >with restrictive modification. > >If this is permitted, then a cmene is a selbri meaning "x1 is called >[cmene]". This sense can then be restrictively modified. > >I had hitherto assumed that cmene are direct labels for individuals - that >cmene have referents but no senses. Another way of putting it: the >extension of a cmene is a single individual (or a named set), but not >a set of individuals each separately denoted by the cmene, although >a cmene may have several alternative extensions. I don't quite follow your question. Colin's posting, so far as I can tell, doesn't put anything into cmene that wasn;t there before. cmene have long been used with restrictive modification, *but* with GOI words, of course, which link sumti. So, to use Colin's examples, modified to conform to current rather than proposed grammer, {le dinju po'u la kreml.} is not assigning selbri-nature to {la kreml.}. Check the meaning of {po'u}. Basically this phrase is equivalent to {le dinju poi [ke'a] du la kreml.}-- "the building which-restrictively-is-such-that [it] equals that-named 'kreml'". This is no different from {le prenu po'u le glico ctuca}-- "the person who-restrictively-is the english-teacher". {po'u} indicates identifying identity between modificand and modifier. {no'u} is analogous. Similarly, {pe} indicates restrictive association between sumti. So {le zdani pe la bab.} doesn't make {bab.} any more selbri-ish than {le zdani pe le glico ctuca}. {pe} is sort of a contraction of {poi [ke'a] srana}, more or less. Is it the use of it for plurals? Remember that Lojban doesn't have grammatical number, so you don't need {lai} for plurals necessarily, {la} works fine. Your question doesn't imply that that's your question very strongly, I'm just grasping at staws here. Can you clarify? ~mark (shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu)