Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 13:09:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: why lojban
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HVBGBBZXKM000DYJ@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1146
Lines: 26

la stivn cusku di'e
 
> Don't be disheartened by all the
> chit-chat about language redesign. Much of the language seems essentially
> unchanged from earlier versions and even from Loglan, its parent.
 
The talk about scopes and existentialism (er.. I mean... existential import)
has not been so much about redesign as about interpretation of what we
already have. In any case, it is actually pretty irrelevant to the actual
use that has been made of the language. It is almost impossible to find
a sentence in the existing corpus that would be interpreted differently
under one view or the other of the existential import of {ro}. As for
scopes, it is also difficult to find an example where it matters. The
reason being that most of the time there is at most one sumti in the
sentence that has an interesting quantifier, and then the question of
subordination simply does not arise.
 
> It would
> be helpful if there was some more discussion about those areas where there
> is concensus. Could there be somethinglike this on the email list?
 
Sure. You can start a discussion on anything you like, and usually you
will get a response.
 
Jorge