From xod@sixgirls.org Mon Feb 05 14:50:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@erika.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_2_1); 5 Feb 2001 22:50:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 72958 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2001 22:50:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Feb 2001 22:50:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO erika.sixgirls.org) (209.208.150.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2001 22:50:33 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by erika.sixgirls.org (8.11.2/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f15MoWk21793 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:50:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:50:31 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] su'u In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > > >From: Robin Lee Powell > > > >Note that John Cowan replied in the same fashion I did. I really > >_sounded_ like you were insisting that the example sentences you > >presented were ambiguous. > > I insisted that they would be ambiguous under xod's proposal, > not that they are with the curent grammar. John quoted me > completely out of context. This is what I wrote: > > >la xod cusku di'e > > > >>No. However, I do not think a single sumti in an abstraction is > >>meaningless or ambiguous. > > > >I don't know about meaningless, but it would be ambiguous. > >{le nu mi klama} could mean {(le nu mi) klama} and > >{le nu (mi klama}. > > > >co'o mi'e xorxes Yes. Jorge proved sumti abstractions are ambiguous. I don't yet agree, though, that sumti abstractions are meaningless, as John states. What if, ignoring the ambiguity issue, we adopted the custom of using "le ka le broda" = "le ka ce'u broda" "le ka le se broda" = "le ka broda ce'u" ----- We do not like And if a cat those Rs and Ds, needed a hat? Who can't resist Free enterprise more subsidies. is there for that!