From cowan  Sat Mar  6 22:58:10 2010
Subject: Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
From: cowan
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 09:59:31 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199511130645.BAA13621@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 13, 95 06:38:18 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length:       1241
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 13 09:59:31 1995
X-From-Space-Address: cowan
Message-ID: <I6TXxgYQrvM.A.4yB.C60kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la .and. cusku di'e

> I oppose [changes to "ckaji"], for reason (iii) below.
> 
> (i) A nicer order is {el ka bruna ckaji la djan la djim}

Agreed, but backward compatibility is important too.  Besides, the proposed
order of "ckaji" (n1 ka n2 n3 ...) resembles the canonical selbri-second
order of Lojban bridi.

> (ii) Even if it is too late to change {ckaji}, a lujvo is always
> possible.

Not a dikyjvo, certainly: no finite conjunction of gismu make possible
a lujvo with an indefinite number of places, unless "jutsi" is involved.
What naldikyjvo do you propose?

> (iii) Open-ended place structures are objectionable: one can never
> be sure whether a sumti is omitted, with understood {zoe}. There
> is no way for the speaker to signal that there are no omitted
> sumti. Better to have a BAI for supplementary places of this sort:
> that way, when the BAI is not there we know the sumti is not there.
> (This objection means {jutsi} should be changed.)

A good point, but BAIs can't capture an indefinite number of places either.
The intent here is to have a mechanism for taking a "le ka" which
describes a non-monadic intension and converting it back into a selbri.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.