Message-Id: <199511211507.KAA14456@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 21 Nov 1995 07:02:26 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      lambda in PA
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

If I even half understand this lambda stuff (unlikely, but what the
heck) AND la and.'s concerns over the assignment of xe'u to PA, then I
am inclined to agree with la. and.

Specifically, members of PA are used in PA_MOI constructions, in MEX, in
subscripts, and as quantifiers on sumti.  So far, I have not seen any
example of the proposed lambda applied to any other than the latter, and
even there, I am not sure it has been applied to more than a couple of
the uses of "quantifier_300" in the sumti grammar.

I could be wrong, but I think all other members of PA at least in theory
could have application in all of these contexts, if only because they
can be used in combination with other members of PA to form a
quantifier_300 that works in all contexts of the latter.

If lambda is restricted to only some of these applications BY PRINCIPLE
as I suspect, then it should be added as a separate selma'o and either
inserted into the appropriate rules as an alternative, or added as an
alternate definition of quantifier_300, with the current definition
renumbered (say to 300A) for use in the MEX-internal reference to
quantifier_300.

lojbab