Message-Id: <m0tKEGE-0000ZUC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 27 Nov 1995 19:49:52 -0500
Reply-To:     Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
Content-Length: 1103
Lines: 27

I'm against this change.

> RATIONALE:
>
> Lambda quantification is needed to specify which place(s) of a "ka"
> abstraction are being abstracted over.

{ke'a} can do the job, and has already been used for that without
inconvenience. The objection to subscripts does not apply in practice,
because properties with multiple arguments are rarely if ever required.
Subscripts would still be needed in general with ce'u anyway.

> In early versions of this change, "ce'u" was a PA digit, which would not
> require a grammatical change, but would allow lots of new kinds of
> garbage.  Now "ce'u" is limited to quantifying sumti and forming indefinite
> descriptions.

"Quantifying" is a strange word for this, since all ce'u would do is
tag a sumti as a lambda variable.

In fact, it is not clear what would be the difference between
{le ka ce'u le ci prenu cu klama} and {le ka ce'u lo prenu cu klama}.
Is the first one the property of being each of the three people that go,
or just one of them? Is the default quantifier of {le} overridden by {ce'u}?
What about {le ka ci le ce'u prenu cu klama}?

Jorge