Message-Id: <199512072335.BAA04256@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 7 Dec 1995 18:34:11 -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: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1369
Lines: 37

lojbab:
> Historically JOI entered the language as a tanru connective.
> A black-and-red beach ball is neithr black nor red because it is
> equally both.

{ta xunre je xekri bolci} does not claim that the ball is black
and that it is red, either, so it is a perfectly good translation.
Tanru logical connectives are non-logical in the sense that they
don't expand to two connected bridi like all the others.

(It is not clear to me that you can't say {ta xunre} when ta is only
partly but significantly red, but that is another issue, concerning
how one understands the meaning of {xunre}.)

> Thus JCB used "ze" which we made "joi".

But JCB's language is not Lojban. Were JCB's tanru logical connectives
shortened forms of full bridi?

> nanmu jo'u ninmu jgina
> presumably talks about all the non-Y chromosome genes.

Why not {nanmu je ninmu jgina}?

I suppose that the expanded tanru would be something like
{jgina be lo'e nanmu .e lo'e ninmu}, so {je} is not perfect
for the tanru, but how is {jo'u} any better? I suppose you
would not be talking about {jgina be lo'e nanmu jo'u ninmu}
any more than about {jgina be lo'e nanmu je ninmu}.

> There - two joi tanru examples in 20 seconds.

Well, I did admit that {joi} and {jo'u} were not meaningless, but
I argued that they duplicate the job of {je}. Do you have examples
with ce, ce'o, jo'e, ku'a, or pi'u?

Jorge