Re: TECH: pe'a/po'a proposal

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

I hate to correct you Jim.  Ivan wrote a paper last year, which will eventu-
ally see print in which he noted several DOZEN kinds of tanru interactions.
I have seen analyses of English only which come up with aybe 15 kinds of
restriction.  Your four types may be the most common, but are by no means
exhaustive.  hence my assumption that it is best to leave it that restriction
is the norm for tanru and lujvo, and leave it to semantics processors to
worry about what kind of restriction is taking place.  tanru will always be
semantically ambiguous, no matter how much we try to diky- it around.  I'd
rather leave the language essentially a human language rather than trying to
make it something computers can process but people cannot.

BTW, all of the proposals regarding pe'a and the like presume that the marker

is an OPTIONAL one, not a required one, as all such discursives and tenses
and whatever in Lojban are optional.

Notwiuthstanding this, I prefer that Lojban tanru and lujvo usually be
regular where possible.  I do not therefore agree with Nick that balvi-speni
is not a kind of speni (remember that Lojban predicates are timeless and
potential, and hence a future speni is a speni all the same); if it is NOT
to be seen as a kind of speni, the speaker SHOULD use spenybalvi and reverse
the order.  I also see blari'o (bluish-green) as a distinct color from
crinyblanu (greenish-blue), and within the realm of a restriction of green.
I will hope that blanu joi crino gets lujv-ized into a separate word than
the restrictive versions.  (I note that in English we DO make a distinction
betwween bluish green and greenish blue - anyone with kids and Crayola crayons
knows this %^).

lojbab