Message-Id: <m0pge9Y-0000R4C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 14 Mar 1994 19:17:42 EST
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Mad Proposals II: The watered down version.
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2160
Lines: 62

la djan cusku di'e sera'a lu .ice'o li'u jo'u lu gice'o li'u

> This looks like explanation-by-expansion, but we know that this does not
> work for non-logicals.

It doesn't work for logicals either, in the case of tanru, and yet we don't
generalize from that to say that it doesn't work for logicals.

In any case, non-logical bridi tail connection already exists in the
language, but only in the forethought version. Adding the afterthought version
when the forethought one already exists is just for convenience.

> Why should non-logical bridi-tail connection be
> explained by non-logical bridi connection?

On the other hand, why not?  I'm not saying that it necessarily should be,
but there's no intrinsic reason why it shouldn't.

> After all, non-logical sumti
> connection and non-logical tanru connection
> are known to be independent in meaning (though intuitively related).

The same can be said for logical sumti and tanru connections.  But the
relationship between bridi and bridi-tail is much stronger than
that between sumti and tanru.

> > mi zgana le se tivni gijo'u citka le cidja
> > "I watch the TV program along-with eat the food"
>
> I don't see it.  This seems as clear-cut a logical connection as any:
> you watch-and-eat just in case you watch and (.ije) you eat.

It means the the same as:

mi jo'ugi zgana le se tivni gi citka le cidja

I don't want to make the two separate claims, I'm claiming a relationship
between {mi}, {le se tivni} and {le cidja}, not two separate relationships.
My mind and body are absorbing the two types of junk as a single event.
(perhaps I should have used {maldja} to make this clearer.) If I say

mi zgana le se tivni gi'e citka le maldja

I'm not establishing any relationship other than the logical one between
the two events.

It's like the difference between:

        mi jo'u do klama le zarci

and:
        mi .e do klama le zarci


The last one is equivalent to two claims, and if each of those two is
true, then the {.e} claim is true.

The first one claims more, and at the same time is more ambiguous. It
probably means that we go together to the market, or something of the sort.


Jorge