Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id PAA12947 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 15:34:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199511292034.PAA12947@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 0ADC6F71 ; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 15:08:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 20:00:51 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: ke'a & xe'u X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 29 15:34:06 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU John: > > Anyway, to clarify, the syntax {duu} shd have is that it take a bridi > > and yield a sumti. (LU takes a word string and yields a sumti.) > That was once the case, actually, although the bridi was semantically > restricted to mathematical identities. How come we lost it? > > But I'm still not persuaded that Jorge's xe'u = ke'a proposal is bad, > > given my lovely prenex-based method of slaying ambiguity. > Even if xe'u were a KOhA rather than a PA or a XEhU, I still don't like > the subscripting trick. Jorge retracted that bit, and adopted the prenex solution. --- And