diversity

[Gerald Koenig <jlk@NETCOM.COM>]

I noticed an error of sumti raising in my previous post below. I see
that to be correct according to the current grammar I have to say:

mi djica tu'a pa lo su'o re snuji, or
mi djica tu'a xe'e lo snuji
I want something about one randomly taken sandwich.

instead of the incorrect (now)
mi djica xe'e lo snuji
I want one randomly taken sandwich,

once again being forced to say (as xorxes has indicated) what we do not
want to say by the grammar.  This gives me an opportunity to put in a
commercial for my language-shifter cmavo which carries abstract sumti
places into concrete sumti places. If we had the shift cmavo *ge'x
which changes the substructure rules into 1st order predicate calculus;
which is the foundation of our grammar anyway, we could say:

mi djica *ge'x xe'e lo snuji [gi'z]
I want one randomly taken sandwich, i.e. I want any sandwich,

and the x2 djica would be happy to receive a concrete sumti, in fact it
would be the only acceptable kind. First order predicate calculus
requires objects as its arguments. Predicates (bridi) are illegal.

ABSTRACT SUMTI PLACE======>CONCRETE SUMTI PLACE
(2nd order)          *ge'x  (first order)

CONCRETE SUMTI ======>ABSTRACT SUMTI
(1st order)    tu'a   (2nd order)

To get djica and her kin working right we can alter the nature of the
permissible variables with tu'a or alter the nature of the receptor
site for the variables with *ge'x. A third way is the lujvo route
suggested by lojbab and .and. Personally I think the language should
provide all three and let usage be the determiner. Coexistence will
probably ensue as each individual gets to express his personal
grammatical predilections. The result is true freedom of thought,
without prescriptive limitations.  And we could really get to know how
the other person thinks in native mode.


==========================================================


To be taken indiscriminately implies a choice from a larger set, at
least two.

pa lo su'o re da
one of the at least two real x's.

would express one selected from a set of at least two.   But that's a
mouthful. Why not xe'e?

I want (any) sandwich would be

mi djica pa lo su'o re snuji   or

mi djica xe'e lo snuji, vs. djan's (with others),

mi djica tu'a lo snuji sa'e

With  the last the waitress would be justified in bringing a sandwich
tray, with the first she would be constrained to bring one
indiscriminately chosen sandwich.  I say this because of the vagueness
of tu'a. Why not call a spade a spade?

djer