Message-Id: <m0tE0zn-0000ZTC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 9 Nov 1995 01:50:59 -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:      Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2253
Lines: 55

I think I understand better now but I am not sure on some things.

>> If the ZOhU version is a different and hence rejected solution, the followin
>> does not apply.  If it is still under consideration (not clear in the propos
>> since you introduce several forms and then never explicitly eliminate any,
>> but rather just proposae something final which may or may not overlap with
>> some of the earlier options), then is there really need for a separate
>> cmavo from zo'u itself.  If there were need for explicit quantification and
>> things would be ambiguous, you might be able to get away with presuming
>> that a first of multiple zo'u s marked xe'u usage.
>
>I think that the second-ZOhU alternative breaks down because we aren't
>allowed to have two prenexes on the same bridi.  I meant to reject that
>alternative; if I wasn't explicit enough, blame it on late-evening editing.


Since when?  here is  grammar.233 excerpt, note the recursive prenex in
sentence_41

>sentence_40             :  bridi_tail_50  /* bare observative or mo answer */
>                        |  sentence_A_41
>                        ;
>
>sentence_A_41           :  GEK_807  sentence_A_41  GIK_816  sentence_40
>                        |  prenex_30  sentence_40
>                        |  statement_42

There is similar recursion at the prenex TUhE paragraph level.
(Better fix the text paper - multiple prenexes HAVE been used)

And then

>> What if you have da, de, and le nanmu, and wish to lambda on
>> le nanmu.
>
>Again, that makes no sense:  lambdacated sumti should be semantically
>empty, or at most a "da poi", which is a variable ranging over a restricted
>scope ("da poi broda" is a kind of "da" that can only refer to something
>that broda's).

So I guess I should have used da, de and "di voi nanmu"?


OK, let me present a practical, if contrived, problem or two.

Team A is better (xagmau) than Team B in leka Their running backs' speed
which I would have done as "leka le kelcnraninbeka cu sutra"

(I was going to say le mela runin. bek. , buit am unsure if that fits your
new version of "me" %^)

I don;t see how to even elicit the required lambda variable, unles it is
"leka le xu'eda kelcnraninbeka cu sutra".  Is this what you intend?

lojbab