From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:27 2010 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list Date: Sun Dec 10 11:02:51 1995 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Sun Dec 10 11:02:51 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: 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