From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 05 07:11:03 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fy85n-0000oL-KW for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:11:03 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1Fy85m-0000o9-KH for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:11:03 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id d42so2199322pyd for ; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:11:01 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=r/9oT61k/A/P7wr+QMwJYJqMl+sGNS3BFBgaT14g1/+Io9xl1/QvThfb8DHYiOmSm1sBdvWOUUV56YAjU2wGjdLLo3VeDC71BGS/hGPd+WQqPnZi60BFnpv0aIfNyIoUrhx0pIlIqI/e5Sz8dRBN5/n0fRra3OCo8F/xeESiuHs= Received: by 10.35.78.13 with SMTP id f13mr3272081pyl; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 07:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607050711y20f118a3h1b3b621123cff2ed@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 11:11:00 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Syntax vs semantics for conjunctions In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 3337 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On 7/5/06, Newton, Philip wrote: > Does that mean that, for example {mi viska lo cukta .e lo xatra .e lo penbi} > is equivalent not only to {mi viska gege lo cukta gi lo xatra gi lo penbi} > (I think that's the equivalent parse) but also to {mi viska ge lo cukta gige > lo xatra gi lo penbi}? For {.e} yes, because it is associative. For non-associative connectives, for example {.o}, no. This is actually different from the case of {ce}, because {.e} doesn't really introduce any new entity the way {ce} does. > And is it possible to express the latter sentence > using {.e} but without {ge}? Yes. Either {mi viska lo cukta .e ke lo xatra .e lo penbi} or {mi viska lo cukta .e lo xatra .e bo lo penbi} will do that, although in the case of {.e} this doesn't really change anything. mu'o mi'e xorxes