Message-Id: <199512101549.RAA13753@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 10 Dec 1995 15:47:55 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1000
Lines: 19

Kris:
> >> 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.
> Here's an idea: make {ke'a} serve both purposes as J suggests, and
> introduce two new cmavo for the poi and ka clauses specifically. In
> either case you could use either {ke'a} or the specific one. The new
> cmavo would be mostly to make logicians happy, as theoretical quantum
> cmavo that {ke'a} represents in actual use.  BUT make the new cmavo be:
> {ke'a'a} and {ke'a'e} to avoid wasting good cmavo space.

I haven't seen any reactions to this posted. I think it's a very very
nice idea, and moreover should constitute a kind of blueprint solution
to problems of this sort.
---
And