Message-Id: <199502090550.AA25256@nfs1.digex.net> From: ucleaar Date: Thu Feb 9 00:50:22 1995 Subject: Re: ago24 & replies X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 9 00:50:22 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu pc: > (I assume that Griecan pragmatics is not the Freudian psychology of lin- > guistics, but that that some possible turns of phrase cannot be > explained to carry some meanings). Could you have another go at saying that? I didn't understand. > Finally, some of the shifts seem just pointless, if not counter- > productive. Some of the above may be of that sort, but the shift > of _lo_broda_ from "all broda" to "some broda," both of which are > redundant for Qda poi constructions and much less efficient in > that role, strikes me as an especially clear case of change for > change sake and without regard to further consequences. What used {lo broda} to mean, or what should it mean if it were not redundant with Q da poi? > Some Notes on Related Threads > 1. I see _xo'u_ is still alive. It is barely alive, being savaged by Jorge's incisive assaults and supported only by my feeble advocacy. > Good! The move to the heqad of the highest prenex is simply the > simplest rule and the one that seems to be involved most often > in natural languages What the **** is a heqad? It looks Arabic, & hasn't made it into the OED (1st ed). > Some of the comments on _xo'u_ seem to be > more appropriate to whatever it is that marks terms in opaque > contexts that can shine through the opacity and be taken to have > external reference. Why shouldn't {xohu} fulfil this function? > 3. The thing And wants for this sibling problem, one from column > A and one from column J is a Cartesian product, for which we once > had a cmavo in JOI, though I cannot now lex it. Can anyone elaborate on this for my benefit? The problem is how to say "mothers of fathers of Jorge and And" (such that J & A are not siblings) without expanding to {lo mamta be lo patfu be J beho beho e lo mamta be lo patfu be A}. > 5. If we are to have lambda variable, we need a slough of them, > since the whole point of lambdacism is that different ones can be > replaced differently. In particular, _lo ka kea mamta kea_ is > not the mother relation but the self-mother relation (one that > rarely holds except for the odd goddess), since _kea_ must be > replaced by the same term in all its occurrences on each applica- > tion. To the severely limited extent that I understand this, it seems to me that (a) you could solve the need for a slough (a slew?) by subscripting, and (b) something other than {keha} should be used, since in relative clauses {keha} appears to behave very differently (though I daren't venture to attempt to say how). --- And