Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> Here's an idea: make {ke'a} serve both purposes as J suggests, and
>> introduce two new cmavo for the poi and ka clauses specifically. In
>> either case you could use either {ke'a} or the specific one. The new
>> cmavo would be mostly to make logicians happy, as theoretical quantum
>> cmavo that {ke'a} represents in actual use.  BUT make the new cmavo be:
>> {ke'a'a} and {ke'a'e} to avoid wasting good cmavo space.
>
>I haven't seen any reactions to this posted. I think it's a very very
>nice idea, and moreover should constitute a kind of blueprint solution
>to problems of this sort.
>---
>And


Since Cowan has proposed and written up his version of lambda with a different
cmavo/selma'o, defacto the proposal was rejected.

It is NOT a "nice" idea because it changes the meaning of a fairly stable
word of the language (ke'a) into something potentially ambiguous in meaning.
The only advantage cited for combining the two meanings that I have seen
is to save a cmavo.  This proposal eliminates that advantage by adding TWO
cmavo, and treading into the experimental cmavo space prior to the 5-year
baseline, something we might consider if it were vital, but this is NOt
a vital solution.

There is NO problem with spearate cmavo for the two usages.  And Jorge has
given almost no advantages, except saving the cmavo, and his perceived
pattern of similarity between the two usages that differs from mine and others'
perceptions of what ke'a is now, and how it works.

lojbab