> Ah... Makes sense. So la .lindar. is "Lindar." (a meaningless string
> of characters) and lo .lindar. is "Thing(s) named Lindar." ? That's
> nifty.
Well, {la broca} is "Broca", but {lo broca} is just undefined.
The same would be true of {lo lindar} (although xorxes has suggested that the
most useful definition of at least many existing cmevla would be as you say).
I wouldn't focus so much on that "default meaning" stuff, as it makes the
whole concept more difficult to grasp.
>> > Can cmevla have multiple places?
>>
>> I don't see why not?
>
> .spagetis. = x1 is spaghetti with sauce x2
> ??
Sure. (Although "x1 is spaghetti of type x2" would be more likely.)
>> > Is {me} being removed from the grammar due to it not being necessary
>> > after this change?
>>
>> No, definitely not.
>
> Then under what condition would it still be used?
Well, that's a pretty broad question. Whenever you want to convert a sumti
into a selbri. i lo me zo me selbri cu plixau
> Well, I'm convinced. It seems like a decent idea as long as it doesn't
> get abused. Do we just start using it now, is there some kind of
> ceremony we have to have first, or... what now?
You can smoke whatever weird experimental stuff you can fit in your pipe,
but don't expect something like this to just suddenly change overnight.
Most Lojbanists probably haven't even read this, much less commented.
But people experiment with all kinds of stuff all the time (e.g., on IRC).
> Does everybody agree on exactly how it'll work?
I suggest you focus on the essence of it, and the essence of it is extremely
simple: We treat cmevla exactly as we treat brivla. Read that again, slowly:
We treat cmevla exactly as we treat brivla.
You know how brivla work, right? What {lo broda} and {la broda} mean?
Good. Then you know how cmevla work under xorla (i.e., exactly the same).