Message-Id: <199511302219.RAA12593@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Thu, 30 Nov 1995 14:53:15 -0700
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

>>  However, Lojban Central is still restricting overloading
>> "ke'a"; how would {le re do} reckon a solution in which there were two cmavo,
>> one for relative clauses ("ke'a") and one for lambda abstraction?
>
>I would prefer that solution over the pseudo-quantifier, but I hate to
>see a new cmavo for something that already exists and is actually so
>rare. I don't think it's overloading. In any case, what's the rush?
>If we find in practice that {ke'a} is causing confusion, a new one
>can be added, but I don't see that happening.

Here's an idea: make {ke'a} serve both purposes as J suggests, and introduce
two new cmavo for the poi and ka clauses specifically.  In either case you
could use either {ke'a} or the specific one.  The new cmavo would be mostly
to make logicians happy, as theoretical quantum cmavo that {ke'a} represents
in actual use.  BUT make the new cmavo be: {ke'a'a} and {ke'a'e} to avoid
wasting good cmavo space.
                     ____
 Chris Bogart        \  /  http://www.quetzal.com
 Boulder, CO          \/   cbogart@quetzal.com