Re: TECH: *mo'u

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

Cowan and I discussed my ideas on this by telephone after I posted this message
in the middle of the night, and I accept that "mi ?naubau la lojban" is not the
preferred expression in the sentence I used ("tavla" or "ciska").  My intent
was to come up with an example where you indeed want to tie the tagged sumti to
a particular other sumti (rather than leaving it at the predicate level).
So a better example would be "casnu", where you might have
"mi ?naubau la lojban (appropriate terminator) ce do ?naubau la gliban cu casnu
We (I in Lojban, and you in English) discuss [something unspecified].

Perhaps this example gives people more to chew on.  A non-restrictive clause
is not appropriate since it is essential to the claim of the sentence as to
which langauge is being used, rather than incidental.  But we have also
commonly used restrictive clauses only to identify, and the languages are not
in this example being used to identify.  Yet the languages are not the main
claim or predicate of the language.  In a sense, what we have is a non-logical
connective kind-of termset, whereas normal termsets only work with logical
connectives.  I thus suggested to Cowan that a non-logical connective be
permitted in a termset as a separate grammar proposal.  I'm still not sure
though, that my example above is truly a termset either, so we may need a
simple conevrter-from BAI-or-selbri-to non-logical-connective, possibly with
its own terminator, as the above example shows.

lojbab