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

["Betsemes" <betsemes@gmail.com>]

Is there a proposal?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 4:09 PM
Subject: [lojban] Re: cmevla a class of brivla


> On 1/9/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >  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.
>
> According to the current baseline (CLL) {me <sumti>}
> means: x1 is/are among the referents of "<sumti>".
>
> The old (ma'oste) definition was: x1 is specific to <sumti> in aspect x2
>
> What's the third possibility?
>
> > But obviously some device is needed to
> > use sumti as predicates, else ambiguity results.
>
> In addition to {me <sumti>} there are {me <sumti> moi} and all
> the other {me <sumti> MOI}s that convert a sumti into a predicate.
>
> The place structure I use for {me <sumti> moi} is
> "x1 is/are <sumti>'s x2 by rule/relationship x3", which, while not
> exactly the same as the old {me <sumti>}, does cover a similar
> ground.
>
> I haven't found any uses for the rest of the MOIs yet.
>
> > 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?
>
> Can they be so used with the current gramma? No.
>
> Could the grammar be modified to allow it? Yes, trivially.
>
> Would it cause problems? It depends what you mean by
> "problems". It would require using a {cu} that is currently
> allowed but not required. You'd have to say {la djan cu klama}
> instead of just {la djan klama}.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>