From pycyn@aol.com Thu Sep 27 12:35:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 27 Sep 2001 19:35:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 71595 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 19:35:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.4.53 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 19:35:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 19:35:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.8b.cd766e3 (657) for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:35:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8b.cd766e3.28e4d995@aol.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:35:49 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8b.cd766e3.28e4d995_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_8b.cd766e3.28e4d995_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/2001 10:04:04 AM Central Daylight Time, pycyn@aol.com writes: &: > Sorry; I agreed with you overhastily. My argument is simply that any > proposed > main clause meaning must be one that doesn't stymie the subordinate > meaning. Your proposed main clause meaning did stymie the subordinate > meaning. And, though it is not part of my argument, I indeed can't imagine > an adequate mainclause meaning.> > > I wasn't aware that I had proposed a main clause reading for anything: I'm > fairly sure I said I had no idea what {ke'a broda} or {ce'u broda} means in > isolation -- I certainly do't know now: lambda expressions are inherently > sumti. But I see your problem: you take {ko'a broda le brode be ce'u} as a > main clause occurrence, which I explicitly deny. In your terminology, > {ce'u} is here bound to the {le} just as in {ka makau mamta ce'u} it is > bound to the {ka} (thought the binding is rather different. > All of which suggests that maybe instead of {le se broda} we could use {le broda be ke'a}, by parity of reasoning (or parody?). --part1_8b.cd766e3.28e4d995_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/27/2001 10:04:04 AM Central Daylight Time, pycyn@aol.com writes:

&:
Sorry; I agreed with you overhastily. My argument is simply that any proposed
main clause meaning must be one that doesn't stymie the subordinate
meaning. Your proposed main clause meaning did stymie the subordinate
meaning. And, though it is not part of my argument, I indeed can't imagine
an adequate mainclause meaning.>

I wasn't aware that I had proposed a main clause reading for anything:  I'm fairly sure I said I had no idea what {ke'a broda} or {ce'u broda} means in isolation -- I certainly do't know now: lambda expressions are inherently sumti.  But I see your problem: you take {ko'a broda le brode be ce'u} as a main clause occurrence, which I explicitly deny. In your terminology, {ce'u} is here bound to the {le} just as in {ka makau mamta ce'u} it is bound to the {ka} (thought the binding is rather different.

All of which suggests that maybe instead of {le se broda} we could use {le broda be ke'a}, by parity of reasoning (or parody?).
--part1_8b.cd766e3.28e4d995_boundary--