Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::233;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141022002214.GD25753@gonzales>
References: <20141015005542.GC3713@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cb-99yDWVYNN-yxCCXZsw=3t7O-aNbtd7rrhb5uTKq3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141018004531.GE20049@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2c8JQsr+7zbrdos-9Wm1t8w+sH1SANSO6e_MGV4ZDjcow@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141018180946.GF20049@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2dUSzYCWm+CNeNugkeU=aO6mWXSY3gn5dc+8XNU3GpasQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141018233648.GA29040@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2eUqpe3AwAY-DxmONhxM3Pj5kyhTm605bAnD3iJEHVgug@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141021010639.GB11705@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2c+ObFDqF_TZTQMjGJRZfZxpoY-pFB4_canWM3Lpdgvsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141022002214.GD25753@gonzales>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:13:47 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2djRZbrg-9HH49qPWH=ds4Tnmj+H26o-L9cywiM3jos7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.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: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb03afa7ac1600506096ccd
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--047d7bb03afa7ac1600506096ccd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> I don't know, the "TT-skimming" semantics seem to give useful results in
> at least some cases.
>
> Probably most usefully, {broda na .i ja ba bo brode} would mean "if
> broda, then afterwards brode".
>
> Then there's the {ja} case I referred to in CLL, which seems reasonable.
>
> For {jo}, it doesn't have an easy translation to english, but seems
> plausibly useful anyway; e.g. {do ba prije gi'o ja'e bo snada} -> "you
> will be wise and therefore successful, or neither".
>

So something like this:

broda .i [jek tag] bo brode
-> broda .i jek brode .i (je?) ga nai ge broda gi brode gi [tag] gi broda
gi brode

(I don't remember now if forethought tag-connective needs a "se" or not
with respect to afterthought tag-connective.)

So for half of the connectives (those with TT F rather than TT T), the tag
is more or less meaningless. Those would be: jenai, naje, najenai, najanai,
jonai, naju, sejunai, and the contradiction one that lojban doesn't have.

I think it might also make sense to analyse tag-connectives as if they were
ordinary tags on the second connectand, with the first connectand acting as
their complement, so:

broda .i [jek tag] bo brode
-> broda .i [jek] brode [(se} tag] lo nu broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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 email 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.

--047d7bb03afa7ac1600506096ccd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Martin Bays <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:mbays@sdf.org" target=3D"_blank">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt;</span>=
 wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;=
border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:=
solid;padding-left:1ex">I don&#39;t know, the &quot;TT-skimming&quot; seman=
tics seem to give useful results in<br>
at least some cases.<br>
<br>
Probably most usefully, {broda na .i ja ba bo brode} would mean &quot;if<br=
>
broda, then afterwards brode&quot;.<br>
<br>
Then there&#39;s the {ja} case I referred to in CLL, which seems reasonable=
.<br>
<br>
For {jo}, it doesn&#39;t have an easy translation to english, but seems<br>
plausibly useful anyway; e.g. {do ba prije gi&#39;o ja&#39;e bo snada} -&gt=
; &quot;you<br>
will be wise and therefore successful, or neither&quot;.<br></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>So something like this:</div><div><br></div><div>broda .i=
 [jek tag] bo brode</div><div>-&gt; broda .i jek brode .i (je?) ga nai ge b=
roda gi brode gi [tag] gi broda gi brode</div><div><br></div><div>(I don=
9;t remember now if forethought tag-connective needs a &quot;se&quot; or no=
t with respect to afterthought tag-connective.)</div><div><br></div><div>So=
 for half of the connectives (those with TT F rather than TT T), the tag is=
 more or less meaningless. Those would be: jenai, naje, najenai, najanai, j=
onai, naju, sejunai, and the contradiction one that lojban doesn&#39;t have=
.</div><div><br></div><div>I think it might also make sense to analyse tag-=
connectives as if they were ordinary tags on the second connectand, with th=
e first connectand acting as their complement, so:</div><div><br></div><div=
>broda .i [jek tag] bo brode<br></div><div>-&gt; broda .i [jek] brode [(se}=
 tag] lo nu broda</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><d=
iv><br></div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--047d7bb03afa7ac1600506096ccd--