Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:35:18 EDT

In a message dated 10/1/2001 1:34:28 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> When we began this discussion about {le mamta be ce'u} you said "How
> else can we talk about functions?". We now have an answer to this, it
> seems: by using a lujvo meaning 'function'.

Well, we don't have the lujvo yet, but that is a trivial objection. As was 
that suggestion a trivial response -- we know how to talk about intensional 
context because we have invented a predicate meaning "is an intensional 
context"? And so on. To be sure it goes a nice way in the metalanguage, but 
the question was meant to be object language.

> 
> So we're left with the question of whether {le mamta be ce'u} is 
> permissible 
> in main clauses. Jorge and I have stated why we think it isn't.
> 
Well, you've stated *that* you think it isn't. And you have mentioned some 
locutions that you like that it would affect slightly, though not eliminate. 
I guess I don't share your esthetic, being logically inclined, so I will 
proceed as before, seeing whether I can get you to have to swallow my pretty, 
which you find ugly, after swallowing all your uglies, which you no doubt 
find pretty.