Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:12:56 -0500

On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 04:38:28PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> In a message dated 7/3/2002 2:56:59 PM Central Daylight Time, 
> [email-masked] writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 08:30:58PM +0200, G. Dyke wrote:
> > > or just
> > > 
> > > {le remei}
> > 
> > Oh wow.
> > 
> > *Duh*.
> > 
> 
> Still might be just the dogs (or a couple of them -- or a couple of the cats, 
> for that matter). It probably means the cat and the dog (though I am not 
> sure of even that) but certainly doesn't certainly mean them.

I'm fine with context resolving those particular issues. I don't
think _all_ the pro-sumti approaches can be realistically unambiguous
(long live ra and ru). "le remei" seems like the best solution
mentioned. The unbounded ko'a approach seems semi-dangerous to me,
as it could damage the intended unambiguity of selma'o ko'a things.
I'd rather munge "ru" than ko'a stuff (and that seems unneccesary
with just "le remei").

Another approach mentioned (maybe it was on irc) was a cmavo meaning
"do'o .enai do". (I.e. 'they' in the sense of otherthan the speaker
and otherthan the listener) This seems like it could be cool, but
probably not neccesary. (And definitely not neccesary for this
particular thing).

-- 
Jordan DeLong
[email-masked]