From cowan  Sat Mar  6 22:58:00 2010
Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
From: cowan
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
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 29 16:51:28 1995
X-From-Space-Address: cowan
Message-ID: <1IhbDSBLYnJ.A.EwB.450kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

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.