Message-Id: <199511230250.VAA28491@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 22 Nov 1995 20:13:40 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar%ucl.ac.uk@UKACRL.BITNET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar%ucl.ac.uk@UKACRL.BITNET>
Subject:      ke'a & xe'u
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

Lojbab:
> >> My objection to {duu} is that it is always singleton in extension,
> >> so should have sumti rather than selbri status.
> >Maybe it would have made more sense to have it in selmaho LU.  It would
> >also have allowed for more complex propositions.
> It would also have allowed for much more grammatical nonsense. What would
> "du'u mu" mean:  the proposition that "5"???

Is {duu mu} currently ungrammatical then?

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.)

> 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.

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.

---
And