Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/1/2001 1:34:28 PM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:

When we began this discussion about {le mamta be ce'u} you said "How
else can we talk about functions?". We now have an answer to this, it
seems: by using a lujvo meaning 'function'.

Well, we don't have the lujvo yet, but that is a trivial objection.  As was that suggestion a trivial response -- we know how to talk about intensional context because we have invented a predicate meaning "is an intensional context"?  And so on.  To be sure it goes a nice way in the metalanguage, but the question was meant to be object language.

So we're left with the question of whether {le mamta be ce'u} is permissible
in main clauses. Jorge and I have stated why we think it isn't.

Well, you've stated *that* you think it isn't.  And you have mentioned some locutions that you like that it would affect slightly, though not eliminate. I guess I don't share your esthetic, being logically inclined, so I will proceed as before, seeing whether I can get you to have to swallow my pretty, which you find ugly, after swallowing all your uglies, which you no doubt find pretty.