Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pfHXO-0000R2C; Sat, 12 Mar 94 02:26 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3394; Sat, 12 Mar 94 02:26:28 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3392; Sat, 12 Mar 1994 02:26:28 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0609; Sat, 12 Mar 1994 01:25:26 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 19:27:51 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Mad Proposals II: The watered down version. X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2490 Lines: 70 la djan cusku di'e > I hadn't really given thought to these proposed {gijoi} forms before. The > main question is, what do they mean? Bridi-tails aren't really semantically [li'o] > 3) mi klama le zarci .ijoi do klama le zarci > > and in fact Example 3 doesn't have a well-understood meaning. (What does it > mean to construct a mass of two sentences, or of the claims of two sentences?) I never claimed {gijoi} is more meaningful than {.ijoi}, but it's not less meaningful either. When we discover what {.ijoi} means, we'll know what {gijoi} means (it's not just an expansion, but their meanings are related). Or are we going to eliminate all constructions for which we don't know the meaning yet? > The only ijoik explained in my reference grammar is ".ice'o", which separates > the elements of an ordered list of bridi. "gice'o" would have a very similar meaning (from the same example): {mi ba kanji lo ni cteki kei gice'o lumci le karce gice'o dzukansa le gerku} is just as meaningful as 15.9) mi ba gasnu la'edi'e .i tu'e kanji lo ni cteki .ice'o lumci le karce .ice'o dzukansa le gerku tu'u I [future] do the-referent-of-the-following: ( Compute the quantity of taxes. And-then wash the car. And-then walkingly-accompany the dog. ) List of things to do: Figure taxes. Wash car. Walk dog. > > I believe that non-logical bridi-tail connectives have no place in the language, > because they have no natural semantics. They have the same natural semantics that non-logical bridi connectives have, since bridi-tails are just a type of bridi. If they don't have a place in the language, neither do non-logical bridi connectives. And here's a possible example with {gijo'u}: mi zgana le se tivni gijo'u citka le cidja "I watch the TV program along-with eat the food" Any doubt what that means? I think {gijo'u} is what is meant in many cases that {gi'e} is now used, because there's no other option. {gi'e} makes the two claims without establishing any connection (other than the logical one) between them, while {gijoi} and company make a single claim, composed of subclaims that are not claimed separately. Here's another one: mi'a cinba vo'a gijoi dasgau vo'a noda I'll let you all figure out what that one means. Jorge (This makes me think that we urgently need the {gijoi}'s, if nothing else.)