From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 12 07:37:55 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HQleV-0001cC-Un for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:37:36 -0700 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HQldW-0001as-3F for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:37:08 -0700 Received: from 0015-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.21] [149.8.64.21]) by mclmx.mail.saic.com for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:36:10 -0400 Received: from 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com ([10.43.229.18]) by 0015-its-ieg01.mail.saic.com (SMSSMTP 4.0.5.66) with SMTP id M2007031209360923629 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:36:10 -0500 Received: from 0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com ([10.75.0.188]) by 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:36:10 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Connectives within abstractions Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:36:09 -0400 Message-Id: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7C0A@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> In-Reply-To: <23dc8c770703120639l1f7e2fa7lc467291e7621b38@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lojban-beginners] Re: Connectives within abstractions Thread-Index: AcdkrDLCws53zdIPSNykgiffn3kCiQAA0TMA From: "Turniansky, Michael" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2007 14:36:10.0003 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6C45E30:01C764B3] X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 4124 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners I misspoke, sorry. "mi djica lenu dzukla kei janai klama" means "I want the (event of walking if goer )" Or, to put it another way "I would like walking if I want the goer". (=mi djica le nu dzukla .ijanai mi djica le klama) since the kei closes out the nu, but not the le) "mi dzukla djica janai klama" => "I walk-go-type-of-want if I walk-going-type-of-go" But I haven't a clue what a walk-desire might be, (although it might be a desire to walk, I suppose. In case this statement says if you are walking, then you want to walk). "mi djica be lenu dzukla kei janai klama" would be exactly the same meaning as without the "be" because the janai is still within the scope of the "nu". But if I had used "ku" instead of "kei", then "mi djica be lenu dzukla ku janai klama" would mean "I want-the-event-of-walking if I go", while "mi djica lenu dzukla ku janai klama" would be ungrammatical because janai ould be trying to link a sumti to a selbri, which is a no-no. --gejyspa -----Original Message----- From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Karl Naylor Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:39 AM To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Connectives within abstractions On 12/03/07, Turniansky, Michael wrote: > "mi djica lenu dzukla janai klama"= "I like the event of (If I go, then > I walk)" Which is what you want. (I like walking everywhere) .ui .e'e ki'e > Iff you put in a kei after dzukla, closing off the NU, then the "le nu > dzukla" would be the left-hand-side of the "janai", and the "klama" > would be the right: > "mi djica lenu dzukla kei janai klama" => "If I go, then I like to > walk." Which is subtly different. It means if you stay put, then we > don't know if you like walking or not. I like that even better. Does it not require a {be} between {djica} and {le}, though? Or how about just "mi dzukla djica janai klama"? Jeks don't affect binding precedence, do they? So that would be "If I go, then I walk-desire" .iepei?