Re: TECH: lambda and "ka" revisited

[Dylan Thurston <dpt@MATH.BERKELEY.EDU>]

la .and. cusku di'e

> ...
> (iii) Open-ended place structures are objectionable: one can never
> be sure whether a sumti is omitted, with understood {zoe}. There
> is no way for the speaker to signal that there are no omitted
> sumti. Better to have a BAI for supplementary places of this sort:
> that way, when the BAI is not there we know the sumti is not there.
> (This objection means {jutsi} should be changed.)

If I understand the proposal correctly, it's not open-ended; the number
of places is just the number of free (omitted) variables in the "ka"
bridi.  (Or is it?  Does it depend on the interpretations of the "zo'e"?
In any case, one has an upper bound.)

co'e mi'e dilyn.