Message-Id: <199404271201.AA21411@nfs1.digex.net> Reply-To: Matthew Faupel Date: Wed Apr 27 08:01:56 1994 Sender: Lojban list From: Matthew Faupel Subject: Re: afterthought logical connection X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: message from Logical Language Group on Wed, 27 Apr 1994 00:34:00 -0400 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Apr 27 08:01:56 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU LB: For all the niceties of Lojban logical connection, I came across something LB: we can't do (I don't think) tonight in conversation session. The statement LB: was something like LB: ...sampymau binxo ... [to which I wanted to add in afterthought LB: ... ja [plujymau binxo], so as to properly group the metaphor as LB: [sampymau binxo] ja [plujymau binxo] LB: Unfortunatley, it seems that once you have said "binxo", there is no LB: easy way to go back and strongly tie it to sampymau. The closest I could LB: come in afterthought was LB: sampymau [binxo ja plujymau] binxo LB: sampymau [binxo ja [plujymau bo binxo] LB: What I really wanted was to be able to say "ke'e" before the ja even though LB: I had not said "ke", and have it (presumably by default, since more complex LB: sentences would be ambiguous), presume the "ke" at the beginning of the LB: tanru - this seems like it will happen often in list-like OR tanru LB: . Alas, I suspect that wouldn;t be possible. Anyone have any ideas, or is LB: this one we are stuck with? The best I can come up with off the top of my head for this particular situation is: sampymau binxo si bo binxo ja plujymau bo binxo or maybe: sampymau binxo si ja plujymau binxo ...not exactly elegant, but then this is spoken not written Lojban. If you were writing it you would just go back and insert the necessary {ke}. I'll freely admit though that this isn't a universal solution to the problem. Cheers, Matthew