From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:46:29 2010 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list Date: Thu Dec 7 18:57:44 1995 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 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec 7 18:57:44 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: <6OkogIXBIuI.A.iNG.Fv0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> 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