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 m0pxzpu-00006TC; Mon, 2 May 94 18:23 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9134; Mon, 02 May 94 18:23:18 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9128; Mon, 2 May 1994 18:23:16 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5824; Mon, 2 May 1994 17:21:40 +0200 Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 11:20:51 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: afterthought logical connection X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199405020454.AA09123@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at May 1, 94 03:09:23 pm Content-Length: 2207 Lines: 69 > > I take it to mean "conjunction or alternation, as the case may be". > > I still don't get it. Since we were talking about "ja", why bring in > "je" and not any of the others? Besides, what is the "javni" doing > there? Or was it meant to be kanxyjavyvlina? Yes, on my part (I suppose that Colin meant that). There was a proposal, which didn't pass, to make "jva" a rafsi for "ja", parallel with "jve". However, the historical connection with "javni" prevailed. > > Actually, pc long ago illustrated one difference. Consider: > > > > 1) ta blanu lorxu gi'o lenku lorxu > > that is-a-blue fox if-and-only-if is-a-cold fox > > That is a blue fox if and only if it is a cold fox. > > > > vs. > > > > 2) ta blanu gi'o lenku lorxu > > That is-a-(blue if-and-only-if cold) fox > > You probably meant: > > ta blanu jo lenku lorxu Woops. Yes. > > > > Example 1 is a mere logical connection between propositions: it does not > entail > > that "ta" refers to a fox of any sort. Example 2, on the other hand, does so > > entail: it claims that "ta" refers to a fox, one which has the property of > > being blue if and only if it is cold. > > Ok, but that doesn't really answer the question. > > What's the difference between: > > ta blanu jo lenku > > and: > ta blanu gi'o lenku In the simplest case, the semantic opposition is probably neutralized. For JCB, sentences like "ta blanu jo lenku" were semi-ungrammatical: generated by his formal grammar, but forbidden by a side constraint called "bad usage". Lojban doesn't have such side constraints, so it contains forms which are semantically identical. > Or between: > > [1] ta blanu jo lenku lorxu > > interpreted as: > > [2] ta lorxu noi blanu jo lenku > > and: > [3] ta lorxu noi blanu gi'o lenku Both Example 2 and Example 3 are ungrammatical, malkemxinropno calques of "that is a fox which is blue ...". Looking past the syntax error, though, the clausal selbri is the selfsame neutralized opposition between "broda JA brode" and "broda GIhA brode". -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.