[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 12:40 AM 12/19/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
We have two alternatives, both of which throw Lojban into upheaval:
allow gadri-like intensionals into siksu, or allow clausal intensionals
into gismu like djica
What we cannot allow is the continuation of the current status, which
allows naive statements like {mi djica lo mikce} for "I need any
doctor". We are damnably lucky noone's realised until now in the
mundane world we've been doing this.
So, to see how feasible things are:
(1) Does anyone know how many intensional preds we have?
Is there any way to ensure that a pred CANNOT be used intensionally?
(2) Is anyone's linguistic intuitions going to be terribly hurt if we
do start saying {mi djica le ka ce'u mikce} and {mi nitcu le ka ce'u
mikce}?
I'd live with it, though I'm not sure I buy the "ka" and not "du'u" in some instances.
(3) How big on the richter scale of gismu adjustment would such a move be?
Probably only one notch above a clarification of a place structure without substantive change.
(4) What is the compelling current rendering of the gadri-like alternative?
I'll leave that to someone else.
(5) Do we want intensional arguments like this used freely anywhere in a place structure, or strictly susbcategorised and appearing only with a handful of gismu?
At present there is no restriction on any argument form appearing anywhere, and we've found that trying to make restrictive rules has only encouraged people to come up with exceptions.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org