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 #1) id m0pwE1z-00006TC; Wed, 27 Apr 94 21:08 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0pwE1z-00006TC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8817; Wed, 27 Apr 94 21:08:23 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8814; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 21:08:23 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4768; Wed, 27 Apr 1994 20:06:49 +0200
Date:         Wed, 27 Apr 1994 11:57:41 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: afterthought logical connection
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 608
Lines: 17

la lojbab cusku di'e

> For all the niceties of Lojban logical connection, I came across something
> we can't do (I don't think) tonight in conversation session.  The statement
> was something like
>
> ...sampymau binxo ... [to which I wanted to add in afterthought
> ... ja [plujymau binxo], so as to properly group the metaphor as
> [sampymau binxo] ja [plujymau binxo]

I would use {gi'a}.

For some reason I'm not very comfortable with logical connectives within
tanru. Could you provide a bit more context? What would be the difference,
if any, between the phrase with {ja} and that with {gi'a}?

Jorge