Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tK5Yc-0000ZUC; Mon, 27 Nov 95 17:33 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 89EE5DE9 ; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 16:33:25 +0100 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:35:31 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: ke'a & xe'u X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199511230250.VAA28491@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 22, 95 08:13:40 pm Content-Length: 1117 Lines: 31 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.