From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:57:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 27929 invoked from network); 31 Jan 1997 12:44:56 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 31 Jan 1997 12:44:56 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.678058A4@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:44:55 +0100 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:40:04 +0200 Reply-To: "R.Uittenbogaard" Sender: Lojban list From: "R.Uittenbogaard" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1216 Lines: 40 Message-ID: Subject: termset connection correction (again) Lojbab wrote: > > > mi ce'e do pe'e .e la djan. ce'e la djeimyz. cu pendo > > > I [,] you [joint] and John [,] James are-friends-of. > > > I am a friend of John, and you are a friend of James. > > > > Is this correct? chapter 14 says quite something different: > > I thought this sentence means: > > > > I am a friend of you, and John is a friend of James. > No, it means {I} {John} > are-a-friend-of > {you} {James} > But this is inconsistent with what is said in chapter 14: > 11.2) mi klama le zarci ce'e le briju pe'e je > le zdani ce'e le ckule > I go to-the market [plus] from-the office [joint] and > to-the house [plus] from-the school. I think this interpretation is correct, also because of example 11.4 (termsets of unequal length): > 11.4) mi pe'e ja do ce'e le zarci > cu klama le briju > I [joint] or you to-the market [plus] > go to/from-the office. Which, BTW, should be: I [joint] or you [plus] to-the market go to/from-the office. co'o mi'e .reneis.