From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 12 08:09:59 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HQm9v-0007u4-4s for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:09:59 -0700 Received: from mclmx.mail.saic.com ([149.8.64.10]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HQm9n-0007tj-DQ for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:09:58 -0700 Received: from 0015-its-ieg02.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 11:09:34 -0400 Received: from 0015-ITS-EXBH01.us.saic.com ([10.43.229.18]) by 0015-its-ieg02.mail.saic.com (SMSSMTP 4.0.5.66) with SMTP id M2007031210093304657 for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:09:33 -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 11:09:33 -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 11:09:32 -0400 Message-Id: <1189A858F8918F43BE3F9C7603C73FB4031E7C0B@0456-its-exmp01.us.saic.com> In-Reply-To: <23dc8c770703120752u53a83f3dmb3815f52204712a3@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [lojban-beginners] Re: Connectives within abstractions Thread-Index: AcdktlxpfwWllhMYQp+SoOA3CC5NOwAAUOIQ From: "Turniansky, Michael" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2007 15:09:33.0201 (UTC) FILETIME=[70C42010:01C764B8] X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Score-Int: -24 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 4126 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 Yes, JA does affect the grouping. See Chapter 5, ex. 16.11 and 16.18 for instance. But yes, "mi dzukla bo djica janai klama" Does mean "I walk-desire if I go", but remember, that means if you are not going, you may or may not desire to walk. The only way this sentence can be false is if you are going somewhere, and don't actually desire walking whiles doing so. --gejsypa -----Original Message----- From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org [mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Karl Naylor Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:53 AM To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Connectives within abstractions On 12/03/07, Turniansky, Michael wrote: > "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). I was aiming for "I walk-desire (ie. desire to walk) if-I go". However, your translation suggests that {janai} interferes with the usual left-grouping and binds {djica} and {klama} tightly, whereas I was hoping that it wouldn't. In that case I think I want "mi dzukla bo djica janai klama". Is that right at last? :) > "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 .ua I was confused because I forgot that {nu} would make a selbri for {janai} to connect, and therefore I couldn't find any selbri that it could attach to. I see now. > 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 Yes, this is what I was thinking of earlier when I wanted that {be}.