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 UAA03801 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 20:44:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199602220144.UAA03801@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 86B69EB2 ; Wed, 21 Feb 1996 20:06:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 18:09:29 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: cue X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1462 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 22 11:16:48 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - John: > > > If the lambda marker were in KOhA, it would be hard to say "ce'u > > > broda" (i.e. "ce'u da poi broda"), which is the domain-restricted > > > lambda. I'm not sure that "xe'u poi broda" (where "xe'u" is a KOhA > > > lambda) does the right thing. > > Ah, I had thought you just liked the extra bit of brevity in the {ceu > > broda} form. I didn't realize {xeu poi} could be tricky. I still don't > > see why it is, though. > On second thought, perhaps it is OK, but remind me how you wish to handle > "ka"-subordinate bridi with more than one lambda variable. How do you mean "how *you* wish to handle..."? I was for {kea} for this job, and failing that for {ceu} in KOhA. {ceu} in PA-like CEhU is your baby. > We must be able to distinguish between: > 1) le ka [lambda] bruna [zo'e] > the property of being a brother (of some specific but unmentioned) A. {ka kea/ceu bruna zoe} [ceu in KOhA] B. {ka ceu da bruna zoe} [ceu PA-like] > 2) le ka [lambda] bruna da > the property of being a brother of someone A. {ka kea/ceu bruna da} B. {ka ceu da xi pa bruna da xi re} > 3) le ka [lambda1] bruna [lambda2] > the relationship of brotherhood A. {ka kea/ceu xi pa bruna kea/ceu xi re} B. {ka ceu da xi pa bruna ceu da xi re} > 4) le ka [lambda1] bruna [lambda1] > the property of being one's own brother A. {ka kea/ceu bruna kea/ceu} B. {ka ceu da xi pa bruna (ceu?) da xi pa} coo, mie and