Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:33:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712101533.KAA04326@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Thanatos Sender: Lojban list From: Thanatos Subject: Logical connectives and questions (and: Re: Beginner question on meaning of "le ... xu ku" and "le ... ku xu") X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 781 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 10 10:33:34 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU From: Chris Bogart >Sounds good to me. I wonder if {le xu cutci ku} would be the same as {le cutci > ku xu}. lo'u le xu cutci ku le'u jboge'a mintu lo'u le cutci ku xu le'u That's something I didn't consider in my playing with {xu}. Yes, it seems that it should. "If the word that an indicator (or group) attaches to is itself a cmavo which governs a grammatical structure, then the indicator construct pertains to the referent of the entire structure." {Refgram, Chp 9.9] I just hadn't considered attaching it to the {le}. How's this? le mlatu cu citka le xu ma cutci .i citka le xu cutci .i go'i .ijo citka le ma cutci (I haven't gotten to the pro-sumti/bridi yet, and I can't spend any more hours composing an email. ;) ) -- Erik W. Cornilsen