From pycyn@aol.com Mon Sep 24 16:42:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 24 Sep 2001 23:42:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 24313 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2001 23:42:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 24 Sep 2001 23:42:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta2 with SMTP; 24 Sep 2001 23:42:35 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.2f.1b320c6f (3852) for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2f.1b320c6f.28e11ee1@aol.com> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:42:25 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Dumb answers to good questions To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_2f.1b320c6f.28e11ee1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_2f.1b320c6f.28e11ee1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/24/2001 5:39:42 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org 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. --part1_2f.1b320c6f.28e11ee1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/24/2001 5:39:42 PM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org 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. --part1_2f.1b320c6f.28e11ee1_boundary--