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

Re: ke'a & xe'u

> > > 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?

Because lojbab noted that it could be brought into NU by changing
"du'u" to "le du'u".

> > > 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.

Granted.  However, Lojban Central is still restricting overloading
"ke'a"; how would {le re do} reckon a solution in which there were two cmavo,
one for relative clauses ("ke'a") and one for lambda abstraction?

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