Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tNRhX-0000ZUC; Wed, 6 Dec 95 23:48 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 6DD140DE ; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 22:48:31 +0100 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:54:36 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199512062118.QAA13760@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Dec 6, 95 09:03:55 pm Content-Length: 782 Lines: 22 mi joi la .and. cusku be di'e casnu > > Because lojbab noted that [du'u] 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)? Simplicity and uniformity. > 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.] Yes, plus simplicity and uniformity. There is no Lojban mechanism that takes a bridi and makes it a sumti; it always passes through a selbri stage first. (Quotators don't count: their operands are texts or words or noises/marks.) -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.