Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::235;
Message-ID: <5435BCA0.1020400@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 00:37:20 +0200
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
References: <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales>	<CAO7tK2fS_pTD3snnSeQ4meDbrBhS_v8RCJvPvbEuLjXDhx-Drw@mail.gmail.com>	<20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales>	<CAO7tK2f_GVeDL5Qukx1k+3wTg5aVcY+z4W6JjB=hF1JGHzwwAw@mail.gmail.com>	<20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales>	<CAO7tK2fdDnOG5OSU5wJ=MQaDMroy3Ht45WjkMnCKBG1o9ofUTg@mail.gmail.com>	<20141005234958.GD1974@gonzales>	<CAO7tK2cr1GSJAsvyr_vCTPb_d-wwagdStfxA67NN4WbDzN80sw@mail.gmail.com>	<20141006025048.GE1974@gonzales>	<CAO7tK2fzy2Uz1sGBvX0WacV+uubGE5zugvKUi66m-LRrXAaYEQ@mail.gmail.com>	<20141008015245.GB17866@gonzales> <CAO7tK2fokLXQ3queR+jP88xaoxMPQBQUojsAOZrF49hKTY=-LQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2fokLXQ3queR+jP88xaoxMPQBQUojsAOZrF49hKTY=-LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


On 09/10/2014 00:09, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote:
> I wouldn't mind actually, mainly because I don't much care for sets in=20
> Lojban. But "lu'i" is not the most used LAhE. Those would have to be=20
> "tu'a" and "la'e" (and their cousin "na'e bo"), so I think we should=20
> concentrate mainly on these three to work out the rules.
>
> "la'e" is "lo se sinxa be", "tu'a" is "lo dumco'e be" or sometimes "lo=20
> nunco'e be", and "na'e bo" is "lo drata be" (or maybe better "lo=20
> nardu'o be").
>
> "la'e" is hardly ever used with quantifier or logically connected=20
> arguments. Those would not be particularly useful with my proposed=20
> expansions.
>
> For "tu'a", it is crucial that it doesn't let quantifiers and=20
> connectives out since it's very purpose is to create an opaque context.
>
> And "na'e bo" does have its uses. For example: "ro na'e bo ko'a .e=20
> ko'e" =3D "ro lo drata be ko'a .e ko'e" =3D "all but ko'a and ko'e". In=
=20
> this case, "all but ko'a and all but ko'e" would be less useful.
>
> So, based on "tu'a" and "na'e bo", which together with "la'e" are=20
> basically the only members of LAhE/NAhE BO that have relevant use, I=20
> would say that the subordinate reading is what makes the most sense.
>
tu'a X (lu'u) =3D lo su'u X co'e (kei ku)

To my understanding, in the case of {broda lo brodo be X}, X is not part=20
of the main bridi (that of broda), but is rather part of the "hidden"=20
bridi within the lo-description.

For example, when one say {lo brodo be naku cu broda}, the "naku" is=20
confined within the internal bridi of the lo-description, and doesn't=20
negate the main claim "X broda".

=E2=80=A2 lo broda be X bei Y bei Z (be'o ku) =3D lo poi'i ke'a broda X fi =
Y fo Z=20
(kei ku)
=E2=80=A2 lo broda be naku (ku) =3D lo poi'i broda naku (ku)
=E2=80=A2 lo broda be mi .e do (ku) =3D lo poi'i broda mi .e do (ku)
=E2=80=A2 lo broda be su'o da (ku) =3D lo poi'i broda su'o da (ku)

Correct me if I'm wrong. :)

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.