[lojban] Re: cmevla a class of brivla

[Jorge Llambías <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

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.