proposed extension to grammar

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

And writes:
>One of Colin's postings (quoted below) surprised me. It combines cmene
>with restrictive modification.
>
>If this is permitted, then a cmene is a selbri meaning "x1 is called
>[cmene]". This sense can then be restrictively modified.
>
>I had hitherto assumed that cmene are direct labels for individuals - that
>cmene have referents but no senses. Another way of putting it: the
>extension of a cmene is a single individual (or a named set), but not
>a set of individuals each separately denoted by the cmene, although
>a cmene may have several alternative extensions.

I don't quite follow your question.  Colin's posting, so far as I can tell,
doesn't put anything into cmene that wasn;t there before.  cmene have long
been used with restrictive modification, *but* with GOI words, of course,
which link sumti.  So, to use Colin's examples, modified to conform to
current rather than proposed grammer, {le dinju po'u la kreml.} is not
assigning selbri-nature to {la kreml.}.  Check the meaning of {po'u}.
Basically this phrase is equivalent to {le dinju poi [ke'a] du la kreml.}--
"the building which-restrictively-is-such-that [it] equals that-named
'kreml'".  This is no different from {le prenu po'u le glico ctuca}-- "the
person who-restrictively-is the english-teacher".  {po'u} indicates
identifying identity between modificand and modifier.  {no'u} is analogous.
Similarly, {pe} indicates restrictive association between sumti.  So {le
zdani pe la bab.} doesn't make {bab.} any more selbri-ish than {le zdani pe
le glico ctuca}.  {pe} is sort of a contraction of {poi [ke'a] srana}, more
or less.

Is it the use of it for plurals?  Remember that Lojban doesn't have
grammatical number, so you don't need {lai} for plurals necessarily, {la}
works fine.  Your question doesn't imply that that's your question very
strongly, I'm just grasping at staws here.  Can you clarify?

~mark  (shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu)