From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:36 2010 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list Date: Wed Dec 6 16:18:48 1995 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 6 16:18:48 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: John > > > > Anyway, to clarify, the syntax {duu} shd have is that it take a bridi > > > > and yield a sumti. (LU takes a word string and yields a sumti.) > > > That was once the case, actually, although the bridi was semantically > > > restricted to mathematical identities. > > How come we lost it? > Because lojbab noted that it could be brought into NU by changing > "du'u" to "le du'u". !! Okay, yes - after all, it is true that it could be brought into NU. But why was it thought a good thing (bearing in mind that it very much isn't)? Can we move it back, please? [I will assume the answer is that the milk is split & it's too late to mop it up.] Jorge: > > 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. I agree with everything Jorge says on this matter. Also please heed his injunction to make haste slowly, because I can't keep up with Lojban list at present, & if even I can't then probably noone but Jorge, who's a bit ubermenschy when it comes to digesting terabytes of email a day, can. --- And