Message-Id: <m0sBHBB-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 03:34:28 -0400
Reply-To:     "Dylan P. Thurston" <DPT@HUMA1.BITNET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "Dylan P. Thurston" <DPT@HUMA1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A modest proposal #2: verdicality
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <01HQJYN91BAABHDVRM@NETOP6.HARVARD.EDU>
Content-Length: 1477
Lines: 32

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.