Received: from mail-ee0-f60.google.com ([74.125.83.60]:33200) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XrZcG-0007DU-5S for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:50:18 -0800 Received: by mail-ee0-f60.google.com with SMTP id c13sf366991eek.5 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:50:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=bG2h4qdUZrMdvBp2Y1QWwg+Pk5u+Gb51SIQQz/0amN4=; b=WfE54ZKmA66a8uHTJuZGQnK/nKgmN2zFWzUhIOx8CYowJJn+EvNUeUyE0DgymqU9hM lAz2M5MVGi4r89S5DyzNihCwwosSqTh2fzDfnDnJYY4HpHlzcGYmh4iq2QZDTQEz0aKN DfImuiBV3QKOhiGXY8luswpqbLwQm2BEcXsxbPjGcECQ7S9RcYc1ob+p0p5G0+3mPFdN KzyHI7z+9Ei+eYhHiDrW9YHIniauZiSK/iIFyOQd1rTCmnH09mQKFSjrQEFegg/rPDOu 24JsMP1vIfDqHx9w5qo3G9xLPwJWlsgL9+y9WbFSR2Uwcs79mwNyR5s9WhxPQG3HI6mo CSlw== X-Received: by 10.152.2.167 with SMTP id 7mr12150lav.4.1416520208991; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:50:08 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.44.194 with SMTP id g2ls126753lam.3.gmail; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:50:08 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.50.243 with SMTP id f19mr209525lbo.1.1416520208056; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:50:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com (mail-lb0-x229.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sg7si359600lbb.1.2014.11.20.13.50.08 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:50:08 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::229; Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id p9so2053812lbv.28 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:50:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.235.196 with SMTP id uo4mr565246lbc.66.1416520207943; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:50:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.70.111 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:50:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141120023048.GA1571@gonzales> References: <20141109192217.GH8588@gonzales> <20141109215830.GB30874@gonzales> <20141112033820.GD15728@gonzales> <20141113021901.GM15728@gonzales> <20141118025013.GB7769@gonzales> <20141120023048.GA1571@gonzales> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:50:07 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3daf4cfd0950508514fb4 X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::229 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c3daf4cfd0950508514fb4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Tuesday, 2014-11-18 at 18:23 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas < > jjllambias@gmail.com>: > > > > I'm thinking the first connectand is independent of the tag-carrying > > connectand. The tag-carrying connectand might also imply the first > > connectand, but that's not necessarily the case for all tags. > > OK. That does mean there's no real co-ordination problem with {je ba > bo}. (But there still is with {je nai ca bo}, which is what the end of > this email is about.) > Not sure what the problem would be with "broda .i je nai ca bo borode" -> "broda .i je nai ca lo nu broda cu brode". > > Also if so, actually - I wouldn't understand {ca ko'u broda gi'e ba bo > > > brode} to imply that {ca ko'u brode}, but rather that {ca ko'u ba > > > brode}. > > > > Yes, but ba what? "ba ko'u" or "ba lo nu broda"? > > Both, and more precisely ba an event of broda which is ca ko'u, but not > itself having to be ca ko'u. > That sounds like "broda ca ko'u gi'e ba bo brode" to me, i.e. with "ca ko'u" scoping over just broda and not over the conjunction. > > So I guess this kind of reasoning would have {broda .i je nai ca bo > > > brodo} mean something like "broda occurs, but broda never occurs > > > simultaneously with brodo"? Whereas I would have expected it to mean > > > something more like "broda occurs some time when brodo doesn't". > > > > I hope you are not thinking that by rejecting an equivalence of "lo" wi= th > > "su'o" I'm somehow embracing an equivalence with "ro". > > No no. I'm assuming that, in the current discussion, whenever you say > {lo nu broda}, you mean it to refer to the kind of {nu broda}. The > quantifications in my english sentences were over time, not over > instances. > OK, but I don't think there's a hidden quantification over time either. > I think it just means "broda occurs, but not simultaneously with > > brodo". > More precisely, I should have said "broda occurs, but brodo doesn't occur simultaneously with it.", since the reference for simultaneity should be broda, not brodo. I think the english is ambiguous there. To disambiguate: do you mean > this to imply that broda does not occur simultaneously with brodo? Yes, or rather that brodo does not occur simultaneoulsy with broda, if it makes any difference. There's nothing said about whether or not brodo occurs at some other time. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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. --001a11c3daf4cfd0950508514fb4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* Tuesday, 2014-11-18 at 18:23 -= 0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjll= ambias@gmail.com>:
>
> I'm thinking the first connectand is independent of the tag-carryi= ng
> connectand. The tag-carrying connectand might also imply the first
> connectand, but that's not necessarily the case for all tags.

OK. That does mean there's no real co-ordination problem with {j= e ba
bo}. (But there still is with {je nai ca bo}, which is what the end of
this email is about.)

Not sure what the= problem would be with "broda .i je nai ca bo borode" -> =C2= =A0"broda .i je nai ca lo nu broda cu brode".

> > Also if so, actually - I wouldn't understand {ca ko'u bro= da gi'e ba bo
> > brode} to imply that {ca ko'u brode}, but rather that {ca ko&= #39;u ba
> > brode}.
>
> Yes, but ba what?=C2=A0 "ba ko'u" or "ba lo nu brod= a"?

Both, and more precisely ba an event of broda which is ca ko'u, = but not
itself having to be ca ko'u.

That s= ounds like "broda ca ko'u gi'e ba bo brode" to me, i.e. w= ith "ca ko'u" scoping over just broda and not over the conjun= ction.=C2=A0


> > So I guess this kind of reasoning would have {broda .i je nai ca = bo
> > brodo} mean something like "broda occurs, but broda never oc= curs
> > simultaneously with brodo"? Whereas I would have expected it= to mean
> > something more like "broda occurs some time when brodo doesn= 't".
>
> I hope you are not thinking that by rejecting an equivalence of "= lo" with
> "su'o" I'm somehow embracing an equivalence with &qu= ot;ro".

No no. I'm assuming that, in the current discussion, whenever yo= u say
{lo nu broda}, you mean it to refer to the kind of {nu broda}. The
quantifications in my english sentences were over time, not over
instances.

OK, but I don't think th= ere's a hidden quantification over time either.=C2=A0

> I think it just means "broda occurs, but not simultaneously with<= br> > brodo".

More precisely= , I should have said "broda occurs, but brodo doesn't occur simult= aneously with it.", since the reference for simultaneity should be bro= da, not brodo.=C2=A0

I t= hink the english is ambiguous there. To disambiguate: do you mean
this to imply that broda does not occur simultaneously with brodo?

Yes, or rather that brodo does not occur simultaneo= ulsy with broda, if it makes any difference. There's nothing said about= whether or not brodo occurs at some other time.

m= u'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--001a11c3daf4cfd0950508514fb4--