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

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:37:33 -0400

At 07:42 PM 9/24/01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>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.

I was referring to the quantifier scope issue, not the focus issue.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org