Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id NAA07672 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 13:50:03 -0500
Message-Id: <199511131850.NAA07672@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id A944790F ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 14:42:04 -0400
Date:         Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:13:42 -0800
Reply-To: Dylan Thurston <dpt@MATH.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Dylan Thurston <dpt@MATH.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited
X-To:         ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <55946.9511130638@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 13 13:50:22 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

la .and. cusku di'e

> ...
> (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.)

If I understand the proposal correctly, it's not open-ended; the number
of places is just the number of free (omitted) variables in the "ka"
bridi.  (Or is it?  Does it depend on the interpretations of the "zo'e"?
In any case, one has an upper bound.)

co'e mi'e dilyn.