Message-Id: <m0py2ND-00006TC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 2 May 1994 14:07:48 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:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1469
Lines: 50

la djan di'e mi spusku

> > 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.

However, the first one is not symmetric. It's different from:

        ta lenku jo blanu

because the place structure is here that of blanu, and before it was
that of lenku, which has an extra place. (If they had conflicting
place structures, which in this case they don't, it's probably
a bad idea to connect them logically.)

Anyway, it's good that there is no semantic difference between them.

> > 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 ...".

{lorxu} looks so much like a noun... It won't happen again (I hope)  :)

My conclusion for now is that in:

        ta blanu jo lenku lorxu

the mysterious tanruic connection is between {blanu jo lenku} and {lorxu},
and that there is nothing vague about the {blanu jo lenku} part in itself.

Jorge