The intent is to update and expand the grammar eventually so that certain
words can act as special tags when they appear in Lojban conversation. For
example, the grammar might specify a rule, which might be rather extensive
and intricate, for governing the order of operations in mekso expressions
and give this table of priorities/rules a single heading/name, such as
"PEMDAS". Certain (metalinguistic) means may be employed in order to switch
the rules of interpretation of Lojban utterances; when these means are
utilized, a value/argument of some kind, possibly (probably?) some sort of
named thing, will be supplied, such as something named "PEMDAS". However,
the name supplied could refer to anything that the speaker and the audience
agree to make acceptable for such reference. Thus, "PEMDAS" as spoken may
refer to some set of rules other than the one labelled "PEMDAS" by the
grammar; these rules may not even be well-defined or self-consistent; they
may or may not refer to the interpretation of mekso expressions. Usually
(probably), the speaker does intend to reference the rules so named by the
grammar, but this is not necessarily the case (especially with
abbreviations and shorter names). In order to remove the ambiguity of
reference, the rule name uttered may be preceded by this word, which will
force it to refer to the rule so named in a given grammar. With this word,
there can be only one legal interpretation of the rule name- videlicet, the
rules specified under that label in the grammar. If no such rule exists in
the grammar, then all bets are off; if it does exist, though, then it must
be the referent.

Specifying xorlo Lojban (or other styles) can be done in this way too.

(Note that the grammar can specify a variety of such rules, applying to
various contexts, which may be mutually contradictory; the grammar itself
will tend to remain neutral with regard to them and the default for
conversation will either be likewise neutral or some cultural default. A
conversation will follow the last specification for rules of
interpretation, or the default, until a new rule for interpretation is
specified.)

Sorry but I don't understand what this word is for at all. If broda is
defined to mean, say, "x1 is the mathbb font used for writing x2", then
that's what lo broda means. How does la'e'au lo broda differ?

Comment #3: Re: Unclear definition

Alex Burka (Fri Jul 3 23:44:24 2015)

durka42 wrote: > Sorry but I don't understand what this word is for at all. If broda is > defined to mean, say, "x1 is the mathbb font used for writing x2", then > that's what lo broda means. How does la'e'au lo broda differ? Now that I posted this comment I see your explanation in another comment above... please include some of that explanation in the definition, if you are serious about this word, because I was totally confused by the definition as is. I *think* you are trying to say that this is a LAhE that means "the Lojban grammar system referred to by this sumti". Is that right?

Comment #4: Re: Unclear definition Curtis W Franks (Sat Jul 4 01:02:31 2015) durka42 wrote: > durka42 wrote: > > Sorry but I don't understand what this word is for at all. If broda is > > defined to mean, say, "x1 is the mathbb font used for writing x2", then > > that's what lo broda means. How does la'e'au lo broda differ? > > Now that I posted this comment I see your explanation in another comment > above... please include some of that explanation in the definition, if you > are serious about this word, because I was totally confused by the > definition as is. I *think* you are trying to say that this is a LAhE that > means "the Lojban grammar system referred to by this sumti". Is that right? At least subsystem, but yes. I suppose that it need not even be a grammar system. For example, if the CLL happened to define "bergu" as being a composition of a very specific set and arrangement of molecules, then "loi bergu" could refer to anything that the speaker desired, but "la'e'au loi bergu" would have no more semantic ambiguity than what the grammar allows (the ambiguity would exist only within the descriptions of "loi" and "bergu" presented officially by the CLL). I envision a new chapter in the official book of Lojban grammar that takes special names/tokens and describes exactly what they mean (to any desired level of precision). It might be helpful to really specify what "tarmi" or what certain Lojban jargon means, for example. Well, if it is included in that chapter of the official grammar, then usage of the special name/tag/token with this word attached to it(s beginning) will definitely refer to only the thing described and defined in that grammar. Any other usages are free to be interpreted as one wills, but this word indicates a very specific restriction in the scope/extent/realm/set of semantic referents. When coupled with other words which indicate the syntax of a sentence (such as order of operation specifiers in mekso, or grammar specifiers (is this utterance in xorlo or it is a different system?) in normal conversation), the rules that would be associated with the special name/tag/token mentioned would be utterly clear- there would be (nearly) no room for interpretation or question.