Message-Id: <199511130645.BAA13621@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 13 Nov 1995 06:38:18 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

> I am ready to propose a PLACE STRUCTURE CHANGE:
> an extension of "ckaji" from the current two-place structure to an
> indefinite-number-of-places structure, adding to the current
> definition a new line:
>        x1 stands in relation x2 (ka) to x3, x4, ... (as many places
>        as x2 requires)
> 4)     la djan. ckaji le ka bruna kei la djim.
>        John has the property-of (brotherhood) with-respect-to-Jim
> At present, the only other indefinite-number-of-places gismu is
> "jutsi", so there is some precedent; OTOH, it's late in the game
> for gismu definition changes, because of the dictionary.
> What do yall think?

I oppose, for reason (iii) below.

(i) A nicer order is {el ka bruna ckaji la djan la djim}

(ii) Even if it is too late to change {ckaji}, a lujvo is always
possible.

(iii) Open-ended place structures are objectionable: one can never
be sure whether a sumti is omitted, with understood {zoe}. There
is no way for the speaker to signal that there are no omitted
sumti. Better to have a BAI for supplementary places of this sort:
that way, when the BAI is not there we know the sumti is not there.
(This objection means {jutsi} should be changed.)

[Incidentally, I'm glad to hear {xruti} is to change.]

---
And