krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > > > mi na birti djuno .i ma'oi je ku ja ma'oi joi vau xu
(The issue is that the definition that I originally and currently have provided allows for both logical and non-logical connectives to be referenced by this word. But they belong to different selma'o. It seems better to me to allow for the word to reference any member of the super-selma'o CONNECTIVE than for it to be restricted to one selma'o. But this might be bad for the grammar or otherwise undesirable. If it is deemed so, I propose that this word be assigned to selma'o JE, referencing only logical connectives, and that a new word joi'o'e be created in selma'o JOI such that it references only non-logical connectives. On the other hand, if ji can be answered with joi, perhaps we only need the former.
(Side note: I have two cases where I want to establish super-selma'o. The first is this case of connectives. The second is the case of letterals and PA digits, which should be able to act in concert so as to form strings together, but which have somewhat different grammars.)
Another issue is that this word does not distinguish between contexts in a sentence. According to the current CLL, I should maybe have invented dofferer words for .e, je, etc. However, many Lojbanists presently agree that the system is too complicated and inelegant, having proposed several versions of essentially the same solution, which simplifies all of these into one set of words. In this newer case, this word works fine. Even in the old CLL case, it could be argued that this word works fine (if it references any allowed member of super-selma'o CONNECTIVE) because the grammatical context of its usage (including nearby terminators) dictate from which selma'o permitted referents can be drawn.)
|