Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again

From: Adam Raizen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:35:06 +0200

la pycyn. cusku di'e

> > I agree that logically the two constructions are identical, but
this
> > is a grammatical rule dictated by the grammatical structure, and
not a
> > logical rule
> But of course one expects that the grammatical structure of a
Logical
> Language is dictated by the logic, not by whatever it is that leads
to these
> anomalies. It is to be expected that, for example, nominal bridis
have (I
> would say "retain") some marks that sentential and predicate bridis
have lost
> (or conversely, of course), but beyond that, it is hard to see the
point of
> the distinctions and for the different restrictions applied.

Well, I'm not sure that this is the type of logic that's at the heart
of a Logical Language, it's more like simplicity and analogousness. At
any rate, Lojban is hardly a perfect loglan, the addition of this
feature will have to wait for the next generation.

> <. In particular, since you can say 'ko'a poi broda gi'e
> brode' but not 'le broda gi'e brode', I think that the two
structures
> are significantly different.>
>
> Why, so it does work out! They are certainly different (we have two
cases so
> far today) but what is the significance of the difference? That
is --
> minimally -- what forces these differences to be a part of the
grammar rather
> than allowing the apparently simpler direct rule (I have been asking
this
> question in one form or another for 26 years now, without ever
getting a
> reasonable answer, so don't worry if you can't think of one)?

Probably analogy to English grammar and lack of thoughly thinking it
through.

> <If we were designing Lojban from scratch,
> I would support putting an entire bridi after 'le', but we're not
and
> that can't be changed now.>
>
> Well, we would leave off (or replace with LE) the first term (or a
selected
> term,, using {ke'a} or the like). I know it can't be changed (it is
perhaps
> the deepest point in Lojban) and don't really want it changed. I
just want
> it explained.

There are other problems; if 'le' is followed by a bridi, then the
sumti would almost always need an explicit terminator, to avoid
swallowing the next sumti, but it might be possible to work something
out.

mu'o mi'e .adam.