From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199405021520.AA14117@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: afterthought logical connection
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 11:20:51 -0400 (ADT)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199405020454.AA09123@nfs1.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at May 1, 94 03:09:23 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       2192
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Mon May  2 11:21:48 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

> > 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 <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.