Re: [lojban] Named multiples

[Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se>]

>> In effect, what you're saying is that you want to completely merge
>> cmevla and fu'ivla.
>
> Merge the syntactic classes cmevla and brivla, yes. Brivla would still
> be divided in four morphological classes: gismu/lujvo/fu'ivla/cmevla,
> but there is no need for the last class to have its own separate
> syntax.

Yeah, I understand.  I think of it as merging cmevla and fu'ivla, since
what you're doing is essentially turning cmevla into a variant of fu'ivla.

But talking about it like that is probably misleading, since it will make
people think about morphology instead of syntax.

>> I don't really see what you're saying here, unless you also want to
>> argue that {.xorxes.} has a "meaning".  What's the difference?
>
> A predicate "xorxes" could mean "is named 'xorxes'", if anything at
> all. In any case, in "la xorxes" the meaning of the predicate is as
> irrelevant as the meaning of "donri" in "la donri". "la" in any case
> removes the meaning from the word that follows.

Yes, okay.

> "x1 is named '...'" would probably be the default meaning for cmevla.
> But other cmevla, like "spagetis" or "opel" would carry more meaning
> than just "x1 is named '...'".

Maybe the distinction is that a name like {opel} (for the cars) is defined
in a more sophisticated way than simply enumerating all its referents.

If so, then I agree: {spagetis} definitely has more meaning than {xorxes}.
Enumerating all spaghetti would be impossible; enumerating you is easy.

Anyway, I think your solution is great.  Do you see any problems with it?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.