Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

[And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>]

Martin Bays, On 11/10/2014 03:12:
> it looks like {tu'a} is in LAhE only syntactically, not
> semantically, and must be handled separately.
>
> (So then tu'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the rest of
> LAhE should get it...)

Given that syntax is logical form -- rather than combinatorics of morphophonological forms, which is pseudosyntax -- your framing of the issue should not be accepted. (I realize I've expressed that in an ex cathedra way, but I'm happy to argue the point if it is contested.) Rather, you mean "{tu'a} is in LAhE only pseudosyntactically, not syntactically". This observation applies to everything that gets said about Lojban syntax; I'm only commenting on it here because of your very careful ratiocinations about the rules for building logical forms.

Me I would advocate throwing away the pseudosyntax as the unlinguistic junk it is, but anybody set on keeping it as the basis for actual syntax couldn't get away with this wishful distinction between 'syntax' and 'semantics' where 'semantics' is used to mean 'structure of logical form'.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.