From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:57:45 2010 Subject: Re: ke'a & xe'u To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 17:23:33 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511292034.PAA12947@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 29, 95 08:00:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 962 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 29 17:23:33 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: > > > 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? Because lojbab noted that it could be brought into NU by changing "du'u" to "le du'u". > > > 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. Granted. However, Lojban Central is still restricting overloading "ke'a"; how would {le re do} reckon a solution in which there were two cmavo, one for relative clauses ("ke'a") and one for lambda abstraction? -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.