Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

John
> > > > 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".

!! Okay, yes - after all, it is true that it could be brought into NU.
But why was it thought a good thing (bearing in mind that it very much
isn't)? Can we move it back, please? [I will assume the answer is that
the milk is split & it's too late to mop it up.]

Jorge:
> >  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?
> I would prefer that solution over the pseudo-quantifier, but I hate to
> see a new cmavo for something that already exists and is actually so
> rare. I don't think it's overloading. In any case, what's the rush?
> If we find in practice that {ke'a} is causing confusion, a new one
> can be added, but I don't see that happening.

I agree with everything Jorge says on this matter. Also please heed his
injunction to make haste slowly, because I can't keep up with Lojban
list at present, & if even I can't then probably noone but Jorge, who's
a bit ubermenschy when it comes to digesting terabytes of email a day,
can.
---
And