Re: [lojban] Re: A Proposed Explanation of {gunma}

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/15/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On 12/15/05, John E Clifford
> > > > and as
> > > > above "John and Mary (separately) picked
> up
> > > tools
> > > > and (together) started to build a house."
> > >
> > > Right, this one requires splitting into two
> > > sentences.
> >
> > As a practical matter for the construction of
> a
> > language to be used, it would be nice (though
> > probably not essential) to do this in another
> way
> > that was more flexible.
> 
> For a new language, yes. For Lojban, I don't
> really see how.
> I think in practice such precision is not
> normally needed,
> and when it is needed it can always be done the
> long way.
> 
>  It might also be more
> > accurate, since what is involved is not
> different
> > things but different ways they are being
> > predicated of, so putting the mark of
> distinction
> > on the thing-referrer is misleading.
> 
> Indeed. That's one of the reasons I hardly ever
> use anything
> other than lo/le/la these days.
> 
Can't argue with any of this but I still think
that a couple of words that fit between argument
and predicate (a only slightly restricted UI)
would be nice to have (and would free up quite a
bit of cmavo space, since we would only need the
{lV}s -- (I assume we could be rid of sets gnerally).