From cowan Wed Nov 29 16:51:28 1995 Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU From: John Cowan To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 16:51:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511292033.PAA12915@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 29, 95 08:00:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 587 Status: OR Message-ID: la .and. cusku di'e > I'm mildly opposed, for the same reasons as Jorge. That is, we think {kea} > can do the job. Also, it is still not clear that CEhU won't still generate > more garbage than a lambda variable in KOhA. Will {ceu} make sense > everywhere a quantifier_300 can occur? Well, it clearly makes sense as an (outer) quantifier on sumti, and in indefinite descriptions. Use as a standalone utterance is probably harmless. The shaky case is as an inner quantifier within descriptions. There are no other uses. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.