Re: [lojban] Re: cmevla a class of brivla

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

--- Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:17:09PM -0400,
> Betsemes wrote:
> > > > I think cmevla should be a class of
> brivla.
> > >
> > > Yes, but you're a crazy person.
> > 
> > Do you disagree on this? 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Do you like how cmevla are used? 
> 
> That's irrelevant; I don't like proposing
> changes to the language
> when what's there isn't broken.

But whether it is broken depends upon where you
draw the line; betsemes' examples look close to
that line on almost any definition of "broken"
(short of "Can't say it at all") and way over it
on some. Since what happens between {la} and the
next significant pause is pretty open, both in
form and interpretation, we need not to the
overly analytic version for "Little John,"  but
the predicate case seems to have no obvious
alternative (well, hooking {lai kraislr} on at
the end by some BAI, rather than by {me} in the
predication directly -- but that is not on the
present topic).  Of course, the uncertainty about
what {me} means (there are at least three so far
today) doesn't help, but anything like it would
be subject to similar problems of excessive
length.  But obviously some device is needed to
use sumti as predicates, else ambiguity results. 
Whether it needs to be as complex as it often now
is is less clear. In particular, can cmevla --
not whole sumti -- be used directly without problems?