From cowan Wed Dec 6 16:54:36 1995 Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU From: John Cowan To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:54:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199512062118.QAA13760@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Dec 6, 95 09:03:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 737 Status: OR Message-ID: 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.