[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ke'a & xe'u

la .and. cusku di'e

> Is {duu mu} currently ungrammatical then?


> Anyway, to clarify, the syntax {duu} shd have is that it take a bridi
> and yield a sumti. (LU takes a word string and yields a sumti.)

That was once the case, actually, although the bridi was semantically
restricted to mathematical identities.

> > If I even half understand this lambda stuff (unlikely, but what the
> > heck) AND la and.'s concerns over the assignment of xe'u to PA, then I
> > am inclined to agree with la. and.
> Wow! I'm delighted by the argument you give, since evidently you do wish
> to minimize the amount of grammatical meaningless garbage.

So do I.  Now that there's some support both in Net.Lojbanistan and in
Lojban Central for the idea, I'll propose a grammar change.

> But I'm still not persuaded that Jorge's xe'u = ke'a proposal is bad,
> given my lovely prenex-based method of slaying ambiguity.

Even if xe'u were a KOhA rather than a PA or a XEhU, I still don't like
the subscripting trick.

John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.