From lojbab@GREBYN.COM Tue Aug 3 23:51:15 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 3 Aug 1993 23:51:14 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9841; Tue, 03 Aug 93 23:50:04 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0367; Tue, 03 Aug 93 23:50:47 EDT Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 23:49:52 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH: SE rafsi omitted in lujvo (was Re: dikyjvo, too, X-To: snark!cowan@GVLS1.VFL.PARAMAX.COM X-Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: I think we have to be careful in using seltanru and tertanru in talking about the effects of "se". If you have only two terms, the expalnations in temrs of those two wrods seem clear. I would like to see Nick and others argue about cases where you have a 3 or better, a 4 place lujvo, which is where people are going to feel evebn more pressure to drop "se"s from the lujvo structure, and you also have more places than just two to consider. Not having looked closely, I hope Nick has talked about >2-piece lujvo in his papers, perhaps even extensively as the problems get very intricate (a 4 place lujvo may be 'composed' of 4 free gismu, of two 2-term lujvo, a 3-termer and a gismu, etc. all in a variety of orders. Ins ome of these the "se" may really be necessary to avoid confusion; indeed, some may require the "ke" and evn the "ke'e" appear in the lujvo to avoid conflict with some other rationale lujvo interpretation (I'm not sure that anyone will quickly come up with an example of these - though the way it will happen will surely be to use lujvo in combination with each other to form super-lujvo. lojbab