From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 05 00:38:04 2006
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62)	(envelope-from <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1Fy1xU-0007WO-4E	for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:38:04 -0700
Received: from mailgw6.gedas.de ([139.1.44.12])	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24)	(Exim 4.62)	(envelope-from <Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de>)	id 1Fy1xS-0007W7-1B	for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 00:38:03 -0700
Received: from mailgw6.gedas.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by mailgw6.gedas.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k657bwf3022702	for <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 09:37:58 +0200
Received: from blnsem08.de.gedas-grp (blnsem08.gedas.de [139.1.84.54])	by mailgw6.gedas.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k657bwh4022696	for <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 09:37:58 +0200
Received: by blnsem08.de.gedas-grp with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)	id <32903LG1>; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 09:37:58 +0200
Message-ID: <A48849B31C98424CBB31A5E6C7D091E6043A56C8@wobsem03.de.gedas-grp>
From: "Newton, Philip" <Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de>
To: "'lojban-beginners@lojban.org'" <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Syntax vs semantics for conjunctions
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 09:37:57 +0200 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 3336
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

la .pier. cu cusku di'e

> For instance, {lo snomabru ku ce lo cakmabru ku ce lo 
> mantyctimabru} denotes the set {sloth, armadillo,
> anteater}, not the set {{sloth, armadillo}, anteater},
> which is what the parse tree implies.

Ah, I had wondered that...

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}? And is it possible to express the latter sentence
using {.e} but without {ge}?

mu'o mi'e .filip.