From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed Nov 16 02:43:48 1994 Message-Id: <199411160743.AA11860@nfs2.digex.net> Date: Wed Nov 16 02:43:48 1994 From: Nick Legend Nicholas Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List In-Reply-To: <9411160558.AA06325@language.unimelb.edu.au> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 15, 94 08:44:51 pm Status: RO 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 , <9307262008.AA95951@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk>