Message-Id: <199512180150.DAA05317@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 17 Dec 1995 21:05:50 -0500
Reply-To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Subject:      Disjunctive compounds (was: left factoring)
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199512172144.QAA19508@locke.ccil.org> from "Jorge Llambias" at
              Dec 17, 95 04:26:26 pm
Content-Length: 974
Lines: 24

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> {lei brife ja canre} logically seems to work, too, but I don't find it
> very appealing. Maybe it's just that we are not used to such things
> in natlangs.

Depends on which natlangs.  Ivan says in his paper on noun compounds:

# There don't seem to be many languages which have disjunctive noun-noun
# compounds, in which the set of instances of the complex concept is the
# union of the sets of instances of the components, as in
# Sanskrit  jayaparajaya `victory or defeat'
# (Traditionally analysed as a rather unfrequent variety of dvandva compounding)
#
# but it is quite common for the compound to refer to a superset of this union:
#
# Mongolian  xorxoj soxo `insect' (`worm beetle'),
#            soxo xorxoj ` ditto' (`beetle worm');
# Kazakh     ayaq-tabaq `crockery' (`cup-plate');
# Qabardian  dqaz `housefowl' (`hen-goose').

--
John Cowan                                      cowan@ccil.org
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.