CHANGE 46

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

> PROPOSED CHANGE:
> The syntax "NUhI terms NUhU EK terms /NUhU/" is REMOVED from Lojban.
> It is a hybrid of forethought (the NUhI) and afterthought, and is
> overly restrictive.
> Instead, a "term group" construct is introduced, joining the terms
> with the new cmavo "ce'e" of the new selma'o CEhE.  A logical connective
> is permitted but not required, thus:  "term ce'e term ... pe'e EK term
> ce'e term ..."  "pe'e" belongs to the new selma'o PEhE.
> The corresponding forethought syntax remains "NUhI GEK terms NUhU GIK
> terms NUhU", and the syntax "NUhI terms NUhU", with no logical connective,
> is added as well.
> RATIONALE:
[...]
> The other problem is that of indicating that two numerically quantified
> sumti have co-equal scope:
>        ci nanmu re gerku cu batci
> says that three men bite two dogs each, for a possible total of six dogs,
>   whereas
>        ci nanmu ce'e re gerku cu batci
>        nu'i ci nanmu re gerku nu'u cu batci
> says that three men bite two dogs each, the same two dogs.

I presume this is not supposed to be a general solution, and your
ci broda vs. ci lo broda solution still stands. cee/nui wouldn't
work for {troci fa ci nanmu loi nunbatci be voa bei re (lo) gerku},
would it?
coo; mie and