From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Thu Oct 13 06:16:00 1994
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA14824
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Thu, 13 Oct 1994 06:15:56 -0400
Message-Id: <199410131015.AA14824@nfs1.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 7893; Thu, 13 Oct 94 06:17:12 EDT
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6386; Thu, 13 Oct 1994 06:16:56 -0400
Date:         Thu, 13 Oct 1994 11:14:26 BST
Reply-To: C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk>
Subject:      Re: TECH: brivla sets with the same sumti
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

> What is the simplest way to render into Lojban "Jack loves and admires
> Jill", i.e. "X Y broda .i X Y brode"? (Not "Jack loves-cum-admires Jill"
> - this is not what I mean, though if you wish to remind me of how that
> is done, please do.)

I believe the answer is

1)              la djak. prami gi'e sinma vau la djil.

This is certainly permitted, by rule:
bridi-tail<50> = bridi-tail-1
        [gihek [stag] KE # bridi-tail /KEhE#/ tail-terms] ...

giving the parse:
({la djak} {<prami VAU> gi'e <sinma vau> <[la djil] VAU>})

This parse does not make it explicit that the effect of the 'vau' is to
group the two selbri before attaching the remoi sumti, but I believe
that is the case.

Another solution:

2) la djak. la djil. prami gi'e sinma

Note also that
3) la djak. prami je sinma la djil.
is not the same as
4) la djak. prami jo'u sinma la djil.
or
5) la djak. prami joi sinma la djil.

It's not easy to grasp the difference among these - I would use '-cum-' for
4) or 5). I know you cannot formally export a 'je', but I would
nevertheless tend to understand  3) as having very much the same meaning
as 1) and 2).

        Colin Fine