Message-Id: <199602101530.RAA08684@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:28:57 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      *old response to and #2
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1000
Lines: 21

>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.

lojbab