Subject: Re: [lojban] Dumb answers to good questions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:42:25 EDT

In a message dated 9/24/2001 5:39:42 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> >And anyway, lojban marks other things 'structurally' rather than by 
> attaching
> >cmavo. An example is quantifier scope -- an interesting example, because
> >several years ago we had big discussions about adding cmavo to mark scope
> >and the proposals fizzled out for lack of advocates.
> 
> "That's the way JCB did it". For more details, I defer to pc.
> 

Who is staying out of this because 1) he doesn't see a lot of point to it 
once we have half a dozen ways to give contrastive value to one part over 
another 2) the issue seem entirely rhetorical, not logical 3) he doesn't 
understand (nor care much about) the distinctions being made as they are made 
4) he can't remember or find any precedents on the issue beyond those already 
raised by some and dismissed by others on some grounds or other. JCB mainly 
used the equivalent of {ba'e} as far as I can remember -- and his {ba'e} 
could be very loud indeed.