From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Sep 11 08:10:19 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mm7lS-000613-NK for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:10:19 -0700 Received: from mail-yx0-f197.google.com ([209.85.210.197]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mm7lN-0005wr-2R for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:10:18 -0700 Received: by yxe35 with SMTP id 35so4274498yxe.2 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:10:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=5IS460DrhlLMSFHZDycUQCYke12V9XX1PKzmnQ2qR40=; b=d8BUhQJlWvv7+nuSXG3i9NFI30Voqp7jejqs6vLsxeQoQo50k1wFQ8FYx8P0x84LS8 vkPRif3nJU4mY9HW9KON2PjZ+TjcyiNdTukTaD5uxy0Tr8V5mTTmYHC/yc9k9IkcYEhF Nh+oaNd9ArO3gUnS8AlPSL/kk0/2IQPzLIXjU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=ncuqzoYLOVhUcuD+7uq1nY0iYBiFXd4g7aX1jYY1uKxEgHaV8rS7ZgFGJopnqSI4mg jKPnF3XvUkNsuwtMpwj6XS7fthmUFxRTv8nWChzj2npcM1cUbjDU94rTRe3/M17GDJBJ ynJIyh5tNCWyFCWCL0jljwPXhE1Wx2xMwIUq8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.81.6 with SMTP id e6mr5010694ybb.295.1252681806361; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:10:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <23298cb40909110800j528aa090y2af41a204bbd7e13@mail.gmail.com> References: <23298cb40909110800j528aa090y2af41a204bbd7e13@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:10:06 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300909110810i4d274575s127fa510d489b47@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: Logical connectives From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5632e15bcc704734eb6d2 X-archive-position: 16152 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --000e0cd5632e15bcc704734eb6d2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I still consider myself fairly new, but I'll take a stab at these. I'm not sure what you mean by {cutka} but yes {ti .a ta} is a single sumti I don't think they {kei} are elidable since you could say something like {mi gleki le nu mi citka lo plise [kei1] .e lo perli [kei2]} depending on which of those {kei} I choose to use I may be saying "I am happy about eating apples ... and something to do with a pear" or I might be saying "I am happy about eating apples and pears". So I don't think {kei} is elidable in this situation. But I could be wrong, the default may be the [kei2] in which case it's elidable if you really intend {lo perli} to be inside the abstraction with {lo plise}. Does that sound about right? On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Remo Dentato wrote: > Hi there, I've a couple of questions on logical connectives (well, I > actually would have more but I'll save the others for another time :) > ). > > Is it correct to say that when using logical connectives like in: {mi > cutka ti .a ta} , {ti .a ta} is a single sumti? > > Also, if I had abstractions {le nu ... kei .e le nu ... kei .e le nu > ... kei} are the {kei} elidable? > > > remod. > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > --000e0cd5632e15bcc704734eb6d2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I still consider myself fairly new, but I'll take a stab at these.
<= br>I'm not sure what you mean by {cutka} but yes {ti .a ta} is a single= sumti

I don't think they {kei} are elidable since you could say= something like {mi gleki le nu mi citka lo plise [kei1] .e lo perli [kei2]= }
depending on which of those {kei} I choose to use I may be saying "I a= m happy about eating apples ... and something to do with a pear" or I = might be saying "I am happy about eating apples and pears".=A0 So= I don't think {kei} is elidable in this situation.=A0 But I could be w= rong, the default may be the [kei2] in which case it's elidable if you = really intend {lo perli} to be inside the abstraction with {lo plise}.

Does that sound about right?

On Fri, = Sep 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi there, I've a couple of questions on logical connectives (well, I actually would have more but I'll save the others for another time :) ).

Is it correct to say that when using logical connectives like in: {mi
cutka ti .a =A0ta} , {ti .a ta} is a single sumti?

Also, if I had abstractions {le nu ... kei .e le nu ... kei .e le nu
... kei} are the {kei} elidable?


remod.


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.


--000e0cd5632e15bcc704734eb6d2-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.