From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:34 2010 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list Date: Wed Dec 6 19:07:22 1995 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: comments on CONN.TXT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 6 19:07:22 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: <6MS7t7frx7E.A.JKF.Ou0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> And: > 7. 13.7 "An imperative sentence [lio] is true if the command is obeyed". > The discussion is potentially misleading. It should be explained that > one could obey the command not only by bringing tea, but also by instead > making this not be coffee. Therefore it is only an approximate and > misleading translation of the English. I'm glad you think that. The fact that {do} is an argument of the command is purely circumstantial, that's why I think that an attitudinal is much better than {ko} for imperatives. In other words, "act so as to make it true that X happens" does not need {do} to be an argument of X in general. > 10. 14.16. (a) Is there a non-connective version of fahu? As in > "the two men love their respective spouses". Unfortunately no. Since I have no use for {le'i} and co., I might start using them for that function. > (b) How can one tell > which series matches up with which? Is it glorked from context? I would say so. > 11. "The place structure of "casnu" is: the mass x1 discusses/talks about > x2 so the x1 place must be occupied by a mass". This seems nonsensical, > unless the x1 of casnu is merely arbitrarily required to be a mass. So > far as I can tell, only gunma's x1 needs to be a mass. {casnu} is supposed to mean something like "x1 interchange opinions about x2". It doesn't make much sense to have a single person casnuing, unless they are talking to themselves. The restriction to being a mass is nothing but that, I think. > 16, 19.3 "mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive zvati gi'onai na zvati la .iupiter" > why don't {jmivezvati} form a tanru? They do. It should be {cu zvati}. > How come {la .iupiter} is a > sumti of both {zvati}? It isn't (explicitly). It should be {zvati gi'onai na zvati vau la iupiter} for that. > How come {gionai} conjoins the two {zvati} > rather than, say, {duu} or {jinvi} with the second {zvati}? Because there's no terminator. To conjoin with {jinvi}, it should be {kei gi'onai}. You can't conjoin using GIhA under LE. Jorge