WikiDiscuss

I have already voted yes, but here are some more comments anyway.

> !! Proposed Definition of ma
>
> ;ma (KOhA7): Sumti question. ma is a pro-sumti (meaning it takes the
....
> requests that the listener provide a sumti as an answer. The sumti
> response should fill the place where ma was in the original bridi in such
> a way as to have a true bridi result from the combination.

That's assuming the listener can and wants to answer with the truth,
which need not be the case. All we can really say is: "The sumti
response fills the place where ma was in the original bridi
and the resulting bridi is the answer offered to the question."

To reject the
> basis of a question (i.e., to indicate that there is no value that could make
> that bridi true), use no da.

I would eliminate "To reject the basis of a question (i.e.," from here.
Answering {noda} doesn't seem to reject the basis of a question, it
just says that no value applies.

> na'i. A bridi with more than one ma should be responded to with an
> unconnected string of sumti.

I'd say "can be responded". You can always respond with a full bridi as well.

> ;zi'o (KOhA7): Nonexistent it.

I think "nonexistent it" is very misleading. "Nonexistent argument place"
would be better.

> lo cmene be zi'o cu zvati je jundi do
> ''A name (regardless of whether some thing is actually being named or not) is
> attending and attentive to you.''

What can that mean?! How can a name be attending, much less attentive?

> zo'e can represent, or be replaced with, just about anything.

I think that can be misleading. Replacing it with something will
usually change the sentence in some way, at least in the pragmatics.
Replacing {zo'e} with anything else will normally make a sentece
less vague.

> into a question. zo'e can represent a referant of any complexity. To
> fully specify the thing represented by zo'e may require very complex
> Lojban, including abstractions, relative clauses, relative sumtcita, and
> combinations thereof.

The complexity of a referent has nothing to do with the complexity
of the sumti used to refer to it. You can use a very simple sumti
to refer to a very complex thing (for example {lo mutce pluja}, or
you can use a very complex sumti, with lots of relative clauses and
whatever else you want, to refer to a very simple thing. {zo'e}
refers to things, and their complexity is not relevant. The
complexity of other potential sumti that could be used to refer
to those same things is also not relevant. {zo'e} is not
particularly linked to any other sumti, so saying that the
same referents could be pointed at by more complex means doesn't
say much. That is true for any sumti, not just for {zo'e}.

> ;zu'i (KOhA7): Typical it. zu'i is a pro-sumti (meaning it takes the
> place of a fully-specified sumti). zu'i represents some value that is
> typical for the bridi place it fills.

I don't think this really makes much sense, but I don't have a better
proposal for {zu'i}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush