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 m0pzAZD-00006TC; Fri, 6 May 94 00:02 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0pzAZD-00006TC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5071; Fri, 06 May 94 00:02:51 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5068; Fri, 6 May 1994 00:02:50 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5498; Thu, 5 May 1994 23:01:16 +0200
Date:         Tue, 3 May 1994 10:33:34 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: 672
Lines: 21

> Jorge complains:
> +++++>
> > > (I'm not
> > > sure what kanxyjvavlina means, why not just the te vlina?)
> Or was it meant to be kanxyjavyvlina?
> >++++

Colin clarifies:

> Yes, it was meant to be that. I was generalising the discussion beyond
> nunkanxe, and we haven't got an agreed term for 'logical connective'
> or its terbri. (I tried lojyjonma'o once, but I don't think it's very
> perspicuous). So I coined one on the spot.

Why not? Maybe {logji jonma'o}, so that {jonma'o} is the general term
for connective. {te jonma'o} and {ve jonma'o} would be the connectees.

(jonma'o reminds me of your Prime Minister's name, maybe it can serve
as a mnemonic.)

Jorge