Message-Id: <199512081918.VAA07712@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:14:47 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X5: Restriction of JOI
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
Content-Length: 1317
Lines: 37

> >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