Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931007165413.576@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Message-Id: <199310071454.AA10667@kruuna.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 7 Oct 1993 10:53:05 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: vilva
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: long, but major topic: lean lujvo and fat gismu
To: Veijo Vilva <VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To:  <199310062146.AA16207@access.digex.net> from "Jorge LLambias" at
              Oct 6, 93 05:46:28 pm
Content-Length: 1234
Lines: 28

mi'e .djan. .i la xorxes. cusku di'e

> > To express that we both go to France with the same
> > origin, route, and means, you must say something like:
> >
> >         mi .e do klama le frasygu'e da de di
> >
> > which when logically expanded has the right effect.  BTW, "mi'o" does not
> > mean "mi .e do", but rather "mi joi do": it is a mass pronoun.
>
> I think this is what I said, no? Doesn't {mi joi do klama le frasygugde}
> require the same origin? (Actually only one origin, for the mass.)

You asked about the distinction, if any, between "mi .e do klama" and
"mi joi do klama".  The distinction is that the former is a concise way of
making two claims, which may differ in the values of the elided places.
The latter makes a single claim with a single value for the elided places,
but that value may be complex.

If I go from England to France, and you from Argentina to the U.S., then
"mi'o" may be said to have a destination of France, or the U.S., or
France {joi} the U.S.  Similar complexities are possible with the origin
place, the route, and the means, leading to some 64 distinct true claims.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.