Message-Id: <m0pwYvU-00006TC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 28 Apr 1994 12:06:13 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
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 2114
Lines: 52

Colin says (about gi'a and ja)

> Syntactically there is of course a difference in scope - any following
> sumti apply to only the te kanxyjvavlina.

Yes, although that is fixed by using {vau} before the sumti. (I'm not
sure what kanxyjvavlina means, why not just the te vlina?)

> But I think there is a
> semantic difference too.

I agree, and I would like to know what it is.

> In particular, 'da sampymau binxo gi'a plujymau binxo' is
> by definition synonymous with 'da sampymau binxo .ija da
> plujymau binxo'. On the other hand, 'da sampymau bo
> binxo ja plujymau bo binxo' may be pragmatically
> very close, but it is not so expandable.
>
> The difference is that the first case makes two separate
> claims, but connects them logically. The second makes
> a single claim - though I'm not entirely sure what it
> means that's different.

That's exactly how I see it too.

At least part of the problem (if it can be called a problem)
is that a tanru gives a single relationship, more or less fuzzily
defined in terms of the components of the tanru. But there
is nothing fuzzy about logical connectives, and if we allow
them to act fuzzily within tanru, this may end up spreading
to the other uses of the logical connectives, spoiling one of
the main characteristics of Lojban.

> But then there are many cases
> where different lojban structures have very similar
> meanings, but I can feel there is a difference there without
> being able to describe it - like 'le nu mi klama' vs
> 'le mi nu klama' - these are entirely different in respect
> of what is omitted, of course, but in context they are
> remarkably close, but not quite.

Why can't you describe the difference in this case? {le nu
mi klama} is the event of my going. {le mi nu klama} is an
event of going related to me. Usually, I suppose, I would
be the one going, but in some context I could be the
destination, starting point, maybe even vehicle or route,
or even something else. There is vagueness, but we know what
type of vagueness. In the case of logical connection within
tanru, I don't know what the difference in meaning is.

Jorge