Message-Id: <199508041732.NAA01466@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:39:55 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: lu'a
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

The lu'a series has two origins.  One was as a solution for the multiple
connectives problem:  how do you for example specify a 4 term XOR - pc
found that by the time you got to 4 terms that Lojban's grammar did not
generate all possible truth-table combinations without repetition and

rearranging.  But the tough ones could all be expressed using the form
"1 from the set {a,b,c}} and 2 from the set {d,e,f}".  Hence lu'a.

Then the others were added as a way to disambiguate conversion among sets,
masses and indivudals.  I can't remember the archetype of this, but it may have
been the multiple interpretations of mi'o, do etc as individuals or masses.
This was almost certainly after Lojban List started and hhence may be in the
archives.

Failing any clear history, my guess is that pc is right because we labelled
them "converters" - they are supposed to take what is inside and 'convert'
it to a different form.

Of courrse thhe question of whether this is the most useful interpretation
is open to disscussion.  The important thing for me is that the original
purpose of lu'a be preserved, and if we determine the original reason for
the other converters, then they also must be preserved.

lojbab