[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
CLL explicitly states that {coi xirma}, {doi xirma} are ambiguous
between {coi/doi la xirma} and {coi/doi le xirma}. Since these
two are nonequivalent, and since Lojban generally is not
ambiguous (it claims that it is syntactically unambiguous but
not semantically unambiguous, but in practise it strives to be
semantically unambiguous and its claim is meant to be that it
is not free from vagueness), should we see this is an error or
brokenness in CLL?
It's really an issue about whether CLL should be allowed to
subvert the underlying principles of the language, since one
can disambiguate with {coi/doi la xirma} and {coi/doi le xirma}.
There is a further wrinkle, though, which is that I take
{doi/coi le xirma} to mean "I hereby address/greet a certain
horse". (It's a silly meaning, but not a silly construction:
I might stand up before a class of students, wishing to
address certain ones of them, and say {doi le tadni}.)
CLL glosses {coi xirma} as "hello horse". But {coi la
xirma} would be "Hello Horse", while "hello horse" would
be "coi do noi ke'a xirma". So CLL seems inconsistent and
hence 'broken' (assuming that consistency is necessary
condition for nonbrokenness).
I therefore think that {coi/doi xirma} should be equivalent
only to {coi/doi la xirma}, which also makes for a simpler
rule: la/lai can be omitted following DOI/COI.
--And.