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 TAA23876 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 19:15:13 -0500
Message-Id: <199511290015.TAA23876@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 E032C6EC ; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 18:57:49 -0500
Date:         Tue, 28 Nov 1995 18:56:13 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: self-descriptions?
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 28 19:15:15 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

And:
> > I agree. I would also prefer that V-initial not be singled out like
> > that.
> Do we know why it is? A relic of some ancient Brownian predilection?

Something to do with the Loglan imperative, I think.

> xe xi pa nu   = nu xi pa    = nu
> se nu         = nu xi re   (= su'uxipa = fa'a'a)
> te nu         = nu xi ci   (= su'uxire = fe'e'e)
> ve nu         = nu xi vo   (= su'uxici = fi'i'i)
> xe nu         = nu xi mu   (= su'uxivo = fo'o'o)
> xe xi xa nu   = nu xi xa   (= su'uximu = fu'u'u)
>
> i.e. the place structure of nu broda is the same as of nunbroda.
>
> This would placate me, and since it requires no change to the
> current syntax, and but little undoing of existing semantics,
> I think I might adopt it.

That works for me. {nu} doesn't have defined x2, x3, etc, so it
seems perfectly fine to assume that that is what you get upon
SE conversion.

Jorge