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

*To*: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>*Subject*: CHANGE 46*From*: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>*Reply-To*: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>*Sender*: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>

> PROPOSED CHANGE: > The syntax "NUhI terms NUhU EK terms /NUhU/" is REMOVED from Lojban. > It is a hybrid of forethought (the NUhI) and afterthought, and is > overly restrictive. > Instead, a "term group" construct is introduced, joining the terms > with the new cmavo "ce'e" of the new selma'o CEhE. A logical connective > is permitted but not required, thus: "term ce'e term ... pe'e EK term > ce'e term ..." "pe'e" belongs to the new selma'o PEhE. > The corresponding forethought syntax remains "NUhI GEK terms NUhU GIK > terms NUhU", and the syntax "NUhI terms NUhU", with no logical connective, > is added as well. > RATIONALE: [...] > The other problem is that of indicating that two numerically quantified > sumti have co-equal scope: > ci nanmu re gerku cu batci > says that three men bite two dogs each, for a possible total of six dogs, > whereas > ci nanmu ce'e re gerku cu batci > nu'i ci nanmu re gerku nu'u cu batci > says that three men bite two dogs each, the same two dogs. I presume this is not supposed to be a general solution, and your ci broda vs. ci lo broda solution still stands. cee/nui wouldn't work for {troci fa ci nanmu loi nunbatci be voa bei re (lo) gerku}, would it? coo; mie and

- Prev by Date:
**TECH: magnitudes** - Next by Date:
**Re: Opacity and "sisku"** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Ordinal ROI: the very idea!** - Next by thread:
**Re: CHANGE 46** - Index(es):