From dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:45:12 2010
Date:         Sun, 21 May 1995 01:15:00 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject:      TECH: Logical connectors (was Re: TEXT: le gunse ku joi le lorxu)
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-From-Space-Date: Sun May 21 01:15:53 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <ExIm98iyFXO.A.u1E.4t0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

jorge@phyast.pitt.edu writes:
 > > I can modify this to show what I was trying to say before (with
 > > "exactly one book on the table"):  sentences with {.e} cannot always
 > > be expanded into a number of sentences connected with {.ije}.
 >
 > That's true. It can only be done if {.e} is joining two sumti at the
 > highest level of the sentence, i.e. two arguments of the main selbri.

Still somewhat confused about this.  If there's more than one logical
connector in the sentence, the order of expansion might matter and it
must be done left to right, yes? e.g.:

        le nanmu .e le ninmu cu viska le nanlu .a le nixla
        Each of (the man and the woman) watches one of (the boy and
                the girl)
so they might watch different things; while in
        le nanlu .a le nixla cu se viska le nanmu .e le ninmu
they must both be watching the _same_ thing (boy or girl), yes?

This also happens with quantifiers:
        le ci nanmu bevri lo tanxe
vs.
        lo tanxe cu se bevri le ci nanmu

In the first they might have different boxes, while in the second they
all carry a single box (in three seperate events).  (Or they might all
carry more than one box).

{je'a xu?}

 > Jorge

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.