From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:57:56 2010 Subject: Re: ke'a & xe'u To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:35:31 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511230250.VAA28491@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 22, 95 08:13:40 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1072 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 27 10:35:31 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: la .and. cusku di'e > Is {duu mu} currently ungrammatical then? Yes. > 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. > > If I even half understand this lambda stuff (unlikely, but what the > > heck) AND la and.'s concerns over the assignment of xe'u to PA, then I > > am inclined to agree with la. and. > > Wow! I'm delighted by the argument you give, since evidently you do wish > to minimize the amount of grammatical meaningless garbage. So do I. Now that there's some support both in Net.Lojbanistan and in Lojban Central for the idea, I'll propose a grammar change. > 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. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.