From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:58:14 2010 Subject: Re: vuo To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:44:15 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511191952.OAA04856@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 19, 95 04:00:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 898 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 20 11:44:15 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: la .and. cusku di'e > On the subject of {vuo}, is there a way to get: > > by e [dy e gy vou ne zy] > > ? Will it work if one resorts to > > by e ke dy e gy vou ne zy kee > > ? And if that will work, must one resort to it? Yes, no, no. The brackets for sumti connection are not ke/ke'e, but LAhE/lu'u. In the beginning, there was only lu'i/lu'u, and they were pure brackets and without semantic content. Then they became transmogrified into set/mass/individual converters, as a result of my being misled by the incautious word "set" in the definition of lu'i. Then LUhI and LAhE got their grammar merged under the name of LAhE. So to say what you want you need by .e lu'a dy .e gy. lu'u ne zy. assuming, that is, that your variables really do refer to individuals and not masses or sets, to avoid unwanted conversions. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.