Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:57:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710131357.IAA27990@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: na`e X-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS X-cc: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <0EHY00KT2DSK1D@newcastle.edu.au> Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1482 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 13 08:57:20 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU On Sun, 5 Oct 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > >> Quantifiable pro-bridi are an abomination on the language. > > > >Ha, ha, ha! Okay. Would you like to explain that a little more? :) > > They are essentially unworkable as soon as you add a little of > complexity. You can use, for example, {su'o mlatu} in a prenex, > to mean "at least one cat". But you can't use {su'o bu'a} to mean > "at least one bu'a", because bu'a has a special rule for how it > works in the prenex. (The way I understand it, this contradicts > the claim of syntactic unambiguity. To keep that claim true bu'a > should be in a selmaho of its own, i.e. the parser should identify > it as a different thing than a normal selbri.) Well, I agree, and it sounds like that aspect of the language isn't well thought-out. Possibly that's something to think of for a slight re-baseline after the five-year design freeze. As far as quantifying selbri goes, what about talking about "nu bu'a", "su'u bu'a", or something like that? >As for our example, does > it really work with cei? Is {su'o bu'a cei na vreta} "some which is > not {vreta}", or does it mean "some which is {na vreta}"? > I would have said the last one, but in any case, whichever it > is, how do we say the other? I don't like that rule with "cei" either. It all sounds really ad hoc. I really think some selbri equivalent of "poi" would be preferable, or else "poi" with an abstraction sumti of the "su'u bu'a", etc. variety. Geoff