Re: [lojban] Named multiples

[Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>]

>> I noticed something on that page that I didn't understand.  Why get rid of
>> sa?  What could be more clear than "take next word and erase all previous
>> words back to the last occurrence of the following word"?
>

> (It's about selma'o, not about specific words.)

Wait, the proposal then is to get rid of all of SA, not just sa itself?  I don't think I want to live in a world without {si}.

ta'onai.  So, I haven't been able to completely follow the conversation fully.  Would the proposed merging cause cmevla to become valid selbri words?  e.g. something like {mi spagetis. citka}?  What would be the ramifications of this?  What would be the proposed default meaning of something like {ko'a cu djan ko'e ko'i}?

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Daniel Brockman <daniel@brockman.se> wrote:

> I noticed something on that page that I didn't understand.  Why get rid of
> sa?  What could be more clear than "take next word and erase all previous
> words back to the last occurrence of the following word"?

(It's about selma'o, not about specific words.)

The definition may be clear, but it's apparently a headache to implement.
Have a look for yourself in the normal grammar.

--
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.

-- 
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.