Message-Id: <m0qSmjn-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 26 Jul 1994 09:41:56 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: To be or not to be? Coffee or tea?
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1369
Lines: 31

la lojbab cusku di'e

> I vaguely suspect that this argument is along the lines of the old
> "John seeks a bicycle or a fish", where the question of intensionality
> comes into play.  Cowan wrote at length on that issue a long time ago and
> I think we have it covered.

Where could I find that? (John's writing, not a bicycle or a fish :)

> Pragmatically, though, to answer a "ji" with ".a" you had better then
> prepared to accept either.  If you want tea, you need to say "na'e", or
> perhaps se.u  (that shoudl have been na.e on the last line).

What? I thought {.a} was a logical connective!

Actually, in the case of djica, there isn't rally a problem if tu'a
is used, because the .a can't be expanded out of the tu'a, but in other
cases, the same problem exists. "I need either a box or a bag" does
not mean "I either need a box or I need a bag".

{mi nitcu lo tanxe .a lo dakli} is the latter. How do I say the former?
Clearly it has to be a non-expandable, non-logical connective. I'd like
to be able to say {*mi nitcu lo tanxe du'ibo lo dakli}.

Of course, "pragmatically", the answer {.a} will mean what you want,
because that's how natural languages work. But if we really believe
that logical connectives are pure logical connectives, without the
baggage of connotations that the words "and", "or", etc have in natlangs,
then it doesn't mean that.

Jorge