Message-Id: <m0r7f1K-00006eC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 16 Nov 1994 18:02:21 +1100
Reply-To:     Nick Legend Nicholas <nsn@SPEECH.LANGUAGE.UNIMELB.EDU.AU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Nick Legend Nicholas <nsn@SPEECH.LANGUAGE.UNIMELB.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban
To:         jorge@phyast.pitt.edu
Cc:         Lojban Mailing List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To:  <9411160558.AA06325@language.unimelb.edu.au> from "Jorge
              Llambias" at Nov 15, 94 08:44:51 pm
Content-Length: 1372
Lines: 26

Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Jorge Llambias jay'?

=> This proposal involves creating an explicit "lambda quantifier", which would
=> formally belong to selma'o PA but would be attached only to da-series KOhA
=> or BY cmavo.

=Any reason why this is preferred to a simple KOhA?
=Also, it would be nice if we could just use {ke'a} for it. Its function is
=very similar, and the problems that might arise in rare cases of embedding
=arise already anyway as it is, so in theory subscripts have to be used.
=(In practice I don't think this is needed enough to be a problem.)

I share Jorge's concern. What we have is three phenomena --- indirect
questions, relative clauses, and properties specific to a given argument ---
with three different ways of marking them. If linguistic/philosophical
scholarship shows we can coalesce any of these, I think we should. And since
my thesis doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast, I'm off to the library...

--
 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
 Nick Nicholas. Melbourne University, Aus. nsn@speech.language.unimelb.edu.au
                                    ---
"Some of the English might say that the Irish orthography is very Irish.
Personally, I have a lot of respect for a people who can create something so
grotesque."
-- Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>, <9307262008.AA95951@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk>