From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:46:28 2010
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Tue Dec 12 23:41:39 1995
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: RET: jeks in descriptions
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 12 23:41:39 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Message-ID: <d8zXvWeU0iM.A.mMG.Ev0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la dilyn cusku di'e

> coi doi kir.
>
> > 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.

Not really. You can't expand anything connected with {.e} into two
sentences, only sumti-level things. Your expansion works for
{lo cukta be fi la lem be'o e lo cukta be fi la borxes}, but not
for the other case.

> To talk about books written be Lem and Borges together, use the
> non-logical connective {joi}:
>
>         mi nelci lo cukta be fi la lem. joi la borxes.
>
> (Actually, this says "I like at least one book by Lem and Borges."  Use
> {lo'e} to get the other sense:
>
>         mi nelci lo'e cukta be fi la lem. .e la borxes.)

I agree that {lo'e} is better: {mi nelci lo'e la lem cukta e
lo'e la borxes cukta}.

Jorge