From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Jan 22 02:39:07 1996
Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id CAA18654 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 02:39:00 -0500
Message-Id: <199601220739.CAA18654@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by vms.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id ADBF95D3 ; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 2:13:26 -0500
Date:         Sun, 21 Jan 1996 16:46:57 -0800
Reply-To: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Nested relative clauses
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  2181


>From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Jan 21 12:46:40 1996
>Return-Path: <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU>
>Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
>       id MAA14327; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 12:46:34 -0800
>Message-Id: <199601212046.MAA14327@mail5.netcom.com>
>Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by vms.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP
 for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 11A3E76C ; Sun, 21 Jan 1996 15:46:18 -0500
>Date:         Sun, 21 Jan 1996 17:27:10 +0000
>Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
>Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
>From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
>Subject:      Re: TECH: Nested relative clauses
>X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
>To: Gerald Koenig <jlk@netcom.com>
>Status: R
>
>Kolin:
>> In Lojban we have invariable words, but clearly defined categories:
>> 'xirma' is a  brivla; it can therefore function as a selbri, or a
>> bridi, or indeed a jufra. It cannot be a sumti - it needs an explicit
>> converter, normally a gadri. Now my objection to 're xirma' is that a
>> laivla (quantifier word) is being used as this converter. Clearly it
>> can be made to work because it has been; but in my view it's a kludge,
>> in large part because it means 're lo xirma' and that 'lo' is part of
>> the skeleton of the phrase. (The presence of 'le re xirma' complicates
>> the issue further)

and>
>John has made {re xirma} and {re lo xirma} nonequivalent in either one
>or two ways (they're different with respect to dogbiting behaviour
>("2 men bite 3 dogs" - how many dogs?) and possibly with respect to
>existential import.

djer:  Did I miss something about the installation of this vague change
in an era of five years of no change?  Maybe I should go to lojfest.

>But anyway, if {re xirma} were equivalent to {re lo xirma}, and
>deserves your criticism, it would be a very mild offender, since the
>rule by which it is abbreviated is so straightforward.

Straightforward, yes, and far reaching.  It's just the difference
between having the number system be based on traditional logic or on set
theory. And a lot more.

>
coo, mie and

djer