From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:27 2010 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list Date: Tue Dec 19 17:23:36 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: Tue Dec 19 17:23:36 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: Lojbab > >> 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. > It is NOT a "nice" idea because it changes the meaning of a fairly > stable word of the language (ke'a) into something potentially ambiguous > in meaning. There is no potential ambiguity. Or, if there is, noone has yet spotted it and pointed it out. The meaning of kea is changed only in that it would become usable in places it wasn't usable in before. > The only advantage cited for combining the two meanings that I have seen > is to save a cmavo. This is a big advantage. Also, the two meanings are similar. > This proposal eliminates that advantage by adding TWO cmavo, and > treading into the experimental cmavo space prior to the 5-year > baseline, something we might consider if it were vital, but this is NOt > a vital solution. I see no problem to entering CVVV space. The appeal of Chris's suggestion is that it satisfies both camps - Jorge & I cd use kea & ignore keae & keaa, while you & John cd use keae and keaa & ignore kea. You cannot legitimately object that this adds 2 extra cmavo, since you're opposed to the solution that adds no extra cmavo. --- And