Subject: RE: [lojban] za'e "postnex"

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:41:40 -0500

At 01:33 PM 1/23/03 +0000, you wrote:
> > >Not in Standard Lojban
> >
> > You just need to be creative
> >
> > [text] .i ro ibu zo'u go'i/la'edi'u
> > or
> > [text with no .i on the end] vau to ro ibu zo'u
>
>Both are elegant but in different ways (which could be discussed on
>Jboske) they both require glorking to get from what they actually say
>to the intended meaning, whereas ordinary prenexes don't.

It may require some conventions (grammatical scope being undefined for 
afterthought structures). But predefined conventions are good, even when 
unofficial, in that they eliminate the need to glork from context. (this 
is not to say that >I< will always approve of them).

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