In Logic, names need to be distinct from descriptions, predicates, variables, connectives, and so on. Does this carry over to Lojban?
cmevla, which play a part in names, are structurally distinct from all other words in Lojban, so could, presumably, play the role of names. They currently play a part in no other Lojban constructions than names.
To be used as names, cmevla must be preceded by {la}, etc., of LE, the class of descriptors,
On the other hand, if {la}+ a particular sumti-tail, is distinct from {la}+ another sumti-tail created by expanding the original in the usual way for missing sumti, then {la} is not a descriptor, but rather a meta device for turning any string of sounds into a name. But then the restriction to sumti-tails seems pointless; why not {broda ko'a}(dot conventions in place of course)? Why not a whole sentence rather than just a sumti-tail (I assume a whole sentence can't be a degenerate case of a sumti-tail)? Why not {la la} and {la ui}? Since any string ending in a consonant can become a name, why not any string at all?
As one way out of this, note that some names do not require {la}: {mi}, {do}, and a few more.
They are distinguished out by enumeration. cmevla are distinguished by structure. Maybe they should join the list of {la}-less names. Then {la} snaps back to apply to sumti-tails only and, while slightly odd, is a mere descriptor again, without all the resulting problems of unwelcome {la} phrases.I think that covers the muck.