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 m0pyFyD-00006TC; Tue, 3 May 94 11:36 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0pyFyD-00006TC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8556; Tue, 03 May 94 11:36:48 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8552; Tue, 3 May 1994 11:36:47 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1055; Tue, 3 May 1994 10:35:09 +0200
Date:         Tue, 3 May 1994 09:33:45 +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: 628
Lines: 17

Jorge complains:
+++++>
> > (I'm not
> > sure what kanxyjvavlina means, why not just the te vlina?)
>
> 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, 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.
        Colin