Re: [lojban] fancu

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/4/2001 10:33:35 AM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes:

Not that I've come close to following this discussion, but would it be
easier to talk about mamta as a function if, like sumji -> su'i, you were
to convert mamta to an operator and use Mex

na'u mamta ["be ce'u" or "be fa ce'u", whichever

I'm not sure.  It would (I suppose -- though I can imagine all kinds of weaseling going on on even this) make it clear that there is a function being talked about.  The problem ten is the temptation to see it as a mathematical function, giving rise to mathemtatical entities as values.  One of the virtues elsewhere has been that the form marked the sort of thing that came out as values {du'u} and propositions, {ni} and qunatities, and so on.