From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:23 2010 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list Date: Wed Dec 13 16:47:39 1995 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: RET: jeks in descriptions To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 13 16:47:39 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: <3rA6HNh-m0D.A.2_E.Du0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> la kir cusku di'e > Let me avoid misleading semantic connotations and re-express > my question in more abstract terms: > > (1) lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e cu brodu > > (2) Ex: broda(x, ko'a) & brodu(x) & Ey: broda(y, ko'e) & brodu(y) > > (3) Ex: broda(x, ko'a) & broda(x, ko'e) & brodu(x) > > Is (1) equal to (2) or to (3) ? It is equal to (3), as you show with your analysis. > (4) da poi broda be ko'a .e ko'e cu brodu > > (5) da poi broda be ko'a cu brodu .ije de poi broda be ko'e cu brodu > > (6) da poi broda be ko'a cu brodu .ije da poi broda be ko'e cu brodu > > My own answer is (1) = (4) = (6), > but I'm newbie in lojban and can't be sure. I think we can safely be sure that this is right, but you never know. > And another related question: is it a way to connect bridi inside > description? I mean something like > > * le broda gi'e brode ku There's {le broda je brode}, but that's a tanru. There is no way of doing it in standard Lojban. And has a convention that lets him do it as {le nuxire broda gi'e brode}, but I will let him explain how that works, lest I be called a reformist. :) Jorge