From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 21 09:23:41 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:23:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J5lb2-0005Ri-Fk for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:23:41 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.184]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J5law-0005RU-0D for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:23:40 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so291860rvf.46 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:23:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=ziNNoOx1qPLakqzGsV0bMfIEeNkhTv8nBfzBMG7tEH8=; b=G4MLTVcUCZy2nZiGKctYnjoudo5YMk4SjcBCLebeeS0yObKkasmCIzqi2wFyIC1Y0N3P22Hb2Qie1lte3xlnAYv0MFGI84bzAmdBGIGiwn6rWwXxeY0zDLpVyAEp/t3Gofo3zJd4AV6oxmu6lhvEDCQVHnm69jHb6QueSZmpvC8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=E/Zg8QMtG9PbIx7st8uBDTjaaK83N3TlWSG5WY87drNTML+ICiwi9NiSFWzgmbgOCHH4Qkcly93tZAJzpu2Li7YXubMVqHGL7ehhEa+yIGzZKLTOSH8+5aCAWbVpnHaLUGtOcFrgJiRA1rQitgC+lWgOCBiB1scDkFRxQJbK+LI= Received: by 10.140.177.15 with SMTP id z15mr893536rve.138.1198257812942; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:23:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.202.21 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:23:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <96f789a60712210923i5957788aob155dc1b5bbcdc8e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:23:32 -0500 From: "Michael Turniansky" To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Correction please In-Reply-To: <925d17560712210918g60337f01k5338fcbc9c895712@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_904_4033195.1198257812924" References: <2f91285f0712210307i4aad2c31jc98c7b95fbb566f0@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560712210658w7edb9d37ub6fadd555c850e13@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60712210718t2d387139pc1297defd995ff8e@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560712210749i7b9bc220j687f5175d6ca230d@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60712210833k4324e582l51fcef2560ba3c8b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560712210918g60337f01k5338fcbc9c895712@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mturniansky@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners ------=_Part_904_4033195.1198257812924 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Dec 21, 2007 12:18 PM, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Dec 21, 2007 1:33 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote= : > > > > 2) I > > have rarely seen the giBAI broda gi brode used (although I see it is i= n > the > > CLL Chapter 9, section 8 (ex. 8.2, 8.3) > > The other way around: {BAI gi ... gi ...}. It can also be used to > connect two sumti > or whatever else geks can connect. > > > I'm not sure how this reads. Is > > it in fact exactly semantically equivalent to "lo nu cirla zbasu cu > > selylarcu du'i lo nu selsaske"? > > Not exactly. > > {lo nu cirla zbasu cu du'i gi selylarcu gi selsaske} is > {lo nu cirla zasu cu selylarcu i du'i bo ri selsaske}. > > The two claims are at the same level, and said to hold equally. > > In the other case, there is a main claim {lo nu cirla zbasu cu selylarcu}= , > which has an added reference for equality, a subordinate event > {lo nu (ri) selysaske}. > > It's not a big difference, but they are not exactly equivalent. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > Okay, thanks --gejyspa ------=_Part_904_4033195.1198257812924 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

On Dec 21, 2007 12:18 PM, Jorge Llamb=ED= as <jjllambias@gmail.com>= wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 1:33 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:>
>  2)  I
> have rarely seen the giBAI  bro= da gi brode used (although I see it is in the
> CLL  Chapter 9, section 8 (ex. 8.2, 8.3)

The oth= er way around: {BAI gi ... gi ...}. It can also be used to
connect two s= umti
or whatever else geks can connect.

>= ; I'm not sure how this reads.  Is
> it in fact exactly semantically equivalent to "lo nu cirla zb= asu cu
> selylarcu du'i lo nu selsaske"?

Not ex= actly.

{lo nu cirla zbasu cu du'i gi selylarcu gi selsaske} is
{lo nu cirla zasu cu selylarcu i du'i bo ri selsaske}.

The t= wo claims are at the same level, and said to hold equally.

In the ot= her case, there is a main claim {lo nu cirla zbasu cu selylarcu},
which = has an added reference for equality, a subordinate event
{lo nu (ri) selysaske}.

It's not a big difference, but they = are not exactly equivalent.

mu= 'o mi'e xorxes
Okay, thanks
  =    --gejyspa
 

------=_Part_904_4033195.1198257812924--