Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tF3S9-0000ZTC; Mon, 13 Nov 95 20:17 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 325ABF4A ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 19:17:54 +0100 Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:13:42 -0800 Reply-To: Dylan Thurston Sender: Lojban list From: Dylan Thurston Subject: Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited X-To: ucleaar X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <55946.9511130638@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> Content-Length: 689 Lines: 16 la .and. cusku di'e > ... > (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.) If I understand the proposal correctly, it's not open-ended; the number of places is just the number of free (omitted) variables in the "ka" bridi. (Or is it? Does it depend on the interpretations of the "zo'e"? In any case, one has an upper bound.) co'e mi'e dilyn.