From DPT@HUMA1.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:12 2010 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 03:34:28 -0400 From: "Dylan P. Thurston" Subject: Re: A modest proposal #2: verdicality To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 16 05:29:05 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: Thanks for the interesting history, lojbab. It seems clear from what you write that Lojban articles are very subtle; any changes should be considered carefully. In particular, I had been wondering why the grammar of quantifiers was so ugly. The answer seems to be that it's never been fixed from the Loglan days :-). (More on this in a later missive.) (Maybe first I should check that my understanding of the uses is correct. {xu} Quantifiers can be used before sumti, yielding a sumti; after a cmavo of selma'o LE, modifying the quantifier; and before a selbri (bridi?), yielding a sumti. There's also some weird use which seems to yield a selbri, as in {pa le re le ci ninmu}, whatever that means.) la lojbab. cusku di'e > But if we eliminate veridicality as the central tenet for the lo/lo'V series, > I am not sure that there is any justification for it to exist at all. Well, gosh. That would free up some prime cmavo real estate, wouldn't it :-). I'm not sure we should be so hasty. {lo broda} can be glossed {da poi broda}. Can {le broda} similarly be glossed {ko'a poi broda} (or perhaps {by poi broda})? If {ko'a poi broda} is not a legitimate alternative for {le broda goi ko'a}, I think it should be. Is there a reason one of these should be primary over the other? (It's interesting to look for similar glosses elsewhere. For instance, {lo'e broda} could be glossed {lo prane le ka broda}, perhaps (maybe with some quantifier).) mu'o mi'e. dilyn.