From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Mon Dec 7 16:47:35 1992 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 7 Dec 1992 12:32:28 -0500 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6975; Mon, 07 Dec 92 12:28:54 EST Received: from UGA.BITNET by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with BSMTP id 6511; Mon, 07 Dec 92 12:28:48 EST Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 21:47:35 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: Distribution problem X-To: Lojban List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9212041337.AA00312@relay1.UU.NET> from "CJ FINE" at Dec 4, 92 01:21:42 pm Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: la kolin. cusku di'e > 1) As Iain spotted, I got seltanru and tertanru the wrong way round. The next release of the gismu list will (hopefully) make the distinction clear. The list is currently not precise on which is which; the intention is that the seltanru comes first (is the modifier) and the tertanru comes second (is the modificand). > 2) The point about selgadri, though correct, is irrelevant. The reason you > cannot expand a connection inside a selgadri to connected sumti is nothing > to do with jeks: it applies just as much with giheks: > > lo nixli gi'a nanla cu broda (1) This sentence is not good Lojban. Lojban does not allow giheks (external connections) within description selbri. In fact, giheks don't connect selbri at all -- they connect whole bridi-tails. > 3) My formal semantic account of kazytanru is slightly flawed, because it > is clear to me that the semantic domain of a tanru is not strictly a > restriction of that of the tertanru (got it right this time!) > > Thus I am clear that > labno prenu > is a reasonable tanru for 'werwolf' (also prenu labno), even though I deny > that > lo labno prenu cu prenu Why? You think werewolves don't have personality? Remember prenu != remna. > I think there may well be a case for explicitly distributive jeks - as > somebody (Iain?) said, a sort of abbreviation > > cmalu ckule gi'e melbi ckule > > > (This is one interpretation of "cmalu je melbi ckule"). However, I'm > dubious, because again, the semantics of the kazytanru in the two cases > need not be the same). Rightly or wrongly, JCB invented jeks (known to him as sheks) for this very purpose. If we are to overthrow his interpretation, we need to be aware what we are doing and why. > (NB everybody - the last ["labno joi prenu"] is not a tanru! Word > encompassing them all please?), I think "tanru" can handle them all. One can specify various types of tanru. -- John Cowan cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban.