From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Mar 24 10:23:10 1996
Received: from punt4.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA10943 ; Sun, 24 Mar 96 10:23:05 BST
Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
          id 827588759:26510:0; Sat, 23 Mar 96 13:45:59 GMT
Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net
          id aa26307; 23 Mar 96 13:45 GMT
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
   with BSMTP id 5973; Sat, 23 Mar 96 08:45:08 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 0900; Sat, 23 Mar 96 08:45:42 EDT
Date:         Sat, 16 Mar 1996 15:35:24 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      CHANGE 46
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Message-ID: <827588730.26307.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Status: R


> PROPOSED CHANGE:
> The syntax "NUhI terms NUhU EK terms /NUhU/" is REMOVED from Lojban.
> It is a hybrid of forethought (the NUhI) and afterthought, and is
> overly restrictive.
> Instead, a "term group" construct is introduced, joining the terms
> with the new cmavo "ce'e" of the new selma'o CEhE.  A logical connective
> is permitted but not required, thus:  "term ce'e term ... pe'e EK term
> ce'e term ..."  "pe'e" belongs to the new selma'o PEhE.
> The corresponding forethought syntax remains "NUhI GEK terms NUhU GIK
> terms NUhU", and the syntax "NUhI terms NUhU", with no logical connective,
> is added as well.
> RATIONALE:
[...]
> The other problem is that of indicating that two numerically quantified
> sumti have co-equal scope:
>        ci nanmu re gerku cu batci
> says that three men bite two dogs each, for a possible total of six dogs,
>   whereas
>        ci nanmu ce'e re gerku cu batci
>        nu'i ci nanmu re gerku nu'u cu batci
> says that three men bite two dogs each, the same two dogs.

I presume this is not supposed to be a general solution, and your
ci broda vs. ci lo broda solution still stands. cee/nui wouldn't
work for {troci fa ci nanmu loi nunbatci be voa bei re (lo) gerku},
would it?
coo; mie and