[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> LAhEs lose much of their > reason of being if they are transparent to quantifiers I agree. If you assume that LAhE is a tool well-designed for its job, then it turns out to have less useful a job than if you just think "here's a tool, what can it most usefully be used for?".
Also, if we want {tu'a} to work like all other LAhEs, they
have to be opaque.
> What we are disagreeing about is on how to handle the > notationally odd F(Qx). You want it to be just a variation of > Qx:...Fx... I want to give it a more complex but I think more > useful meaning. But we are not disagreeing about the basic > unquantified Fx That's right. But F(Qx) is odd whether F is a function or a predicate. It's a notation allowed by Lojban as a convenience, but it has to be translated into something logically sound. I understand that your meaning is more useful, but you are in effect changing the meaning of F when in F(Qx).
Not really. For example, lu'i would be defined as something
like:
lu'i Qx = da poi ge Qx cmima ke'a
gi no de poi na du x cu cmima ke'a
and the same formula would apply without the quantifier.
This is like what happens with {tu'a}:
tu'a Qx = le du'u Qx co'e
but if the quantifier is outside it remains outside.
> How do you propose to say "a mass of two books (only)"?
{lo cukta re mei}, {lau'o re cukta}, {lu'o lau'i re cukta}.
There is no decent way in current Lojban, but I don't think
that justifies mungeing LAhE.
I'm not sure I see the point of having LAhE at all if they are transparent. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus