Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tGVLL-0000ZTC; Fri, 17 Nov 95 20:16 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id B8C826C3 ; Fri, 17 Nov 1995 19:16:55 +0100 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:58:08 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1134 Lines: 29 la lojbab cusku di'e > 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? That's how I would do it too: abu xagmau by le ka le ke'a kelcnraninbeki cu sutra (Until I know more about the proposal I refuse to use a PA for what to me should clearly be a KOhA.) Of course, {ke'a} (or whatever is the lambda variable) can be elided when it is clear from context, so your first choice is perfectly acceptable, too. It just may be vague. (e.g. it could mean that A is better than B in that the running backs are faster at doing them: {abu xagmau by le ka le kelcnraninbeki cu sutra ke'a}.) There is no rule that the lambda variable must be explicited, but it has to be if you want to avoid possible misinterpretations. Jorge