Message-Id: <m0pwS5L-00006TC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 28 Apr 1994 10:04:54 +0100
Reply-To:     Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: afterthought logical connection
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1319
Lines: 34

Jorge asks of Lojbab:
+++++>
 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}?
>++++

I think that pragmatically, Jorge's suggestion would work, but there
is a difference.

Syntactically there is of course a difference in scope - any following
sumti apply to only the te kanxyjvavlina. But I think there is a
semantic difference too.

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. 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.

        Colin