[lojban] Re: cmevla a class of brivla

[John E Clifford <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

--- Betsemes <betsemes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a proposal?

For making cmevla be a type of brivla? I don't
think so; this was at best exploratory: what
would happen if... .  It does seem that nothing
very drastic would happen (but there may be
deeper problems yet to come to light), but that
still does not make it to the level of saying it
would be a good idea to do it (though there are
some points on that side) and certainly not of
actually proposing the change.  I would tend to
favor the change, were it proposed, at least
partly because I don't like any of the historic
Lojban uses of {me} (I think they are already
covered or could be with less dramatic moves) and
the cmevla as brivla would do away with the
Loglan original as well.
The bit about _{me ... moi} IS a proposal, which
suffers (in my view) from using {me} in yet
another sense and {moi} in an unrelated (OK, you
can make up a kind of story which makes this use
look a little like what happens with orderings)
sense (and is a discontinous component that
cannot be analyzed into its parts).

> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jorge Llamb�as" <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.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 



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.