From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Dec 8 16:34:07 1995 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Date: Fri Dec 8 16:34:07 1995 Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X5: Restriction of JOI X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR Message-ID: > >Do you have examples > >with ce, ce'o, jo'e, ku'a, or pi'u? > > I can't even remember what some of them are. As sumti connectors: {ce} gives a set out of two elements. {ce'o} gives an ordered pair. {jo'e} gives the union of two sets. {ku'a} gives the intersection of two sets. {pi'u} gives the Cartesian product of two sets. As tanru connectors I have no idea. > I think we have done "nanmu ku'a ninmu" as heterosexual couples, and this > could also be used as a modifier (nanmu ku'a ninmu ke dansu nunsalci) a > dance/ball specifically for mixed couples. The intersection of men and women is a couple? Even if you meant the union or the Cartesian product, it still doesn't make sense, because men and women are not sets. The Cartesian product of a set of men and a set of women gives a set of ordered pairs, each of the men with each of the women, so they would be very promiscuous couples if it made any sense at all. > If we didn;t have a word for "parents" mamta jo'e patfu should work and > is a little stronger than joi. Is {le mamta jo'e patfu} the same as {le'i mamta ku jo'e le'i patfu} = the union of the set of mothers and the set of fathers? Or is {lo mamta jo'e patfu} a member of that set? If so, then {lo mamta ja patfu} is much better, because you don't need to go through the sets. Jorge