Re: ke'a & xe'u

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

John:
> > 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.

How come we lost it?

> > 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.

Jorge retracted that bit, and adopted the prenex solution.

---
And