From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Tue Dec  8 18:21:30 1992
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 8 Dec 1992 20:01:25 -0500
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 9315; Tue, 08 Dec 92 19:57:49 EST
Received: from UGA.BITNET by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) with BSMTP id  0630; Tue, 08 Dec 92 19:57:49 EST
Date:         Tue, 8 Dec 1992 18:21:30 +0000
Reply-To: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Distribution problem
X-To:         John Cowan <cowan%snark.thyrsus.com%cbmvax@UUNET.UU.NET>
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
In-Reply-To:  (null)
Status: RO
X-Status: 
Message-ID: <U8vx8zzqKGG.A.EdC.S80kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

On Mon, 7 Dec 1992, John Cowan wrote:

John answers me:
>
> > 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.
>
Good point. You are quite right.

> > 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.

You're right, I had forgotten that.
 >
> > 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.

JCB also had, (in the edition of L1 that I have - 3rd?) a number of
meanings of "Pretty Little Girls School" with 'crossed' scopes - the
equivalent of eg

        cmalu nixli ckule gi'e melbi ke nixli ckule

somehow contracted in this sort of way. As I recall, he eventually
disowned these (though I may be wrong - are they in the recent edition?).
I suggest that they are just the same kind of thing - trying for a formal
structure because it looks neat, without thinking about whether there is a
reasonable semantic structure to correspond to it.

 >
> >  (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.

As "tanru" is currently defined, I don't think it can - though, once
again, tanru based on zo tanru certainly could be made to.

                Colin