Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tF0pt-0000ZTC; Mon, 13 Nov 95 17:30 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id C765ED92 ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 16:30:16 +0100 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 09:59:31 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199511130645.BAA13621@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 13, 95 06:38:18 am Content-Length: 1286 Lines: 31 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.