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 m0pfFvK-0000R2C; Sat, 12 Mar 94 00:43 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2555; Sat, 12 Mar 94 00:42:50 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2553; Sat, 12 Mar 1994 00:42:50 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7731; Fri, 11 Mar 1994 23:41:49 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 17:41:46 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Mad Proposals II: The watered down version. X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199403110251.AA13509@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Mar 10, 94 09:53:14 pm Content-Length: 1497 Lines: 37 > MAD PROPOSAL NUMBER 2: > > Replace {gi'e}'s by {gije}'s, and allow {gijoi}'s for the same function. 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 meaningful in the Lojban context; "gi'e" exists primarily to imitate natural languages which have NP-VP sentences: 1) mi klama le zarci gi'e cadzu le bisli I go-to the market and walk-on the ice. In the English sentence, the "and" is connecting VPs, but in the Lojban it's connecting a selbri-plus-trailing-sumti, a purely "surface syntax" notion. We explain giheks by the corresponding ijeks, as it is a principle in Lojban that all logical connectives "expand out" to bridi logical connection. For non-logical connection, though, this rule does not hold: 2) mi joi do klama le zarci I massed-with you go-to the market does not expand to 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?) The only ijoik explained in my reference grammar is ".ice'o", which separates the elements of an ordered list of bridi. I believe that non-logical bridi-tail connectives have no place in the language, because they have no natural semantics. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.