Message-Id: <199602130457.XAA28466@mail1.access.digex.net>
Date:         Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:24:26 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      *old response to and #2
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Status: OR
Content-Length: 1287

lojbab
> >John:
> >> > Anyway, to clarify, the syntax {duu} shd have is that it take a bridi
> >> > and yield a sumti. (LU takes a word string and yields a sumti.)
> >> That was once the case, actually, although the bridi was semantically
> >> restricted to mathematical identities.
> >How come we lost it?
> Because Lojban doesn't HAVE semantic restrictions in its grammar.  If we
> do not encode in the YACC grammar that a mathematical bridi is a
> different kind of animal than a non-mathematical one, then there is no
> constraint against using it non-mathematically, especially for certain
> rebellious types %^).  It is cumbersome to maintain a YACC-grammatical
> distinction between the two types of bridi, and I suspect that
> mathematicians and logicians would say that there IS no essential
> difference between the two.  So if you can see a justification for
> "du'u" in its present form for mathematical bridi, then you should be
> willing to accept that it is logical to accept the form for
> non-mathematical bridi.

I see no justification for duu in its present form for mathematical or
nonmathematical bridi. The change that ought to have been made is that
the restriction to mathematical bridi shd be relaxed, not that the whole
construction be abandoned.

coo, mie and