=A0 I disagree. =A0The sentence "mi sutra je jipci&qu= ot; is perfectly sensible, and does =A0NOT mean the same thing as "mi = sutra gi'e jipci" (although ultimately the refferents are the same= ). =A0 Imagine a Venn diagram. =A0In one circle are the sutra, fast things = (it does not matter what the selsutra are. =A0They may or may not share the= m, because they are unspecified. =A0There are subsets that are sutra be lo = nudansu, sutra be lo nu cadzu, etc, but they are ALL included in the "= sutra" set. =A0There is another circle which are jipci (again, some ar= e jipci be la'o gy Rhode Island Red gy, some are jipci be la'o gy B= lack Shumen =A0gy, etc. =A0It doesn't matter. =A0They are all jipci). = =A0The circles overlap (there are some things that are both sutra je jipci.= =A0I am (well actually, you are, iesk) in that intersection. =A0That is wh= at the sentence "mi sutra je jipci" represents. =A0

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--gejyspa

<= br>

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM, iesk <pa.fae@gmx.de> wrote:<= br>

la selpa'i ku cusku di&= #39;e

>I always treated it like this: When one pred= icate has more places than
>the other, the {je} connection only affects those places that "ove= rlap".
>In this example, blanu1 and zdani1 are connected, but zd= ani2 is not,
>because there is no blanu2. Without this, the example w= ould indeed be
>questionable, but tanru internal connectives would then be even more>useless, so I don't recommend this interpretation.

I = understand. You thus save {ti blanu je zdani} from being useless non-
sense. (Even then, {ti blanu je zdani} instead of then-equivalent {ti
bl= anu gi'e zdani} seems like bad style to me. I think it is a bit of apity that it is a CLL example sentence.)

I suppose you also accept = {blanu je zdani ti}, by the same reasoning?

>{zi'o} might be debatable, but {no da} is out of the questi= on. There
>cannot be a hidden negation in a {zo'e}.

= Indeed.

>Also, I think it's important to ma= ke a difference between connected
>seltau units, and connected tertau units. This thread is only about the=
>latter. The expansion for connected seltau units is deliberately va= gue,
>and usually gets expanded into two seperate tanru. But this is = probably
>for another thread.

Yes, I decided not to propose the sel= tau perspective because I find it
easier to explain the issue from the t= ertau perspective.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.=
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.