Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA23075 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 03:34:37 +0200 Message-Id: <199512130134.DAA23075@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 02004DB8 ; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 2:34:36 +0100 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 04:32:41 +0300 Reply-To: Cyril Slobin Sender: Lojban list From: Cyril Slobin Organization: Institute for Commercial Engineering Subject: Re: RET: jeks in descriptions X-To: Dylan Thurston , lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199512120359.GAA22843@feast.fe.msk.ru>; from Dylan Thurston at Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:28:17 -0800 Content-Length: 1883 Lines: 63 coi. > > What > > > > mi nelci lo cukta be fi la lem. .e la borxes. > > > > means? Does it mean that I like books by Lem and books by Borjes > > or that I like books written by Lem and Borjes together? > > The former. .e is a logical connective, which effectively means that it > distributes in cases like this; the sentence is equivalent to > > mi nelci lo cukta be fi la lem. .ije mi nelci lo cukta be fi la > borxes. It's obviously so when sumti of main bridi are connected, but not so obviously when sumti inside descriptions are. 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) ? If I have understood you well, you claim that (1) is equal to (2) and not to (3). Right? But what about following: (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 Is (1) equal to (4)? Is (4) equal to (5) or to (6)? My own answer is (1) = (4) = (6), but I'm newbie in lojban and can't be sure. On the other hand, I belive that everybody agree that (5) = (2) and (6) = (7) and (7) = (3). (7) Ex: broda(x, ko'a) & brodu(x) & broda(x, ko'e) & brodu(x) Summary: (1) = (4) = (6) = (7) = (3). Where is the weak link in this chain (if is)? And another related question: is it a way to connect bridi inside description? I mean something like * le broda gi'e brode ku but this is ungammatical... co'o mi'e. kir. -- Cyril Slobin `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, `it means just what I choose it to mean'