Re: [lojban-beginners] Tanru-internal connectives, place structure, non-sense

I disagree. The sentence "mi sutra je jipci" is perfectly sensible, and does NOT mean the same thing as "mi sutra gi'e jipci" (although ultimately the refferents are the same). Imagine a Venn diagram. In one circle are the sutra, fast things (it does not matter what the selsutra are. They may or may not share them, because they are unspecified. There are subsets that are sutra be lo nudansu, sutra be lo nu cadzu, etc, but they are ALL included in the "sutra" set. There is another circle which are jipci (again, some are jipci be la'o gy Rhode Island Red gy, some are jipci be la'o gy Black Shumen gy, etc. It doesn't matter. They are all jipci). The circles overlap (there are some things that are both sutra je jipci. I am (well actually, you are, iesk) in that intersection. That is what the sentence "mi sutra je jipci" represents.

--gejyspa

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM, iesk <pa.fae@gmx.de> wrote:

la selpa'i ku cusku di'e

>I always treated it like this: When one predicate has more places than
>the other, the {je} connection only affects those places that "overlap".
>In this example, blanu1 and zdani1 are connected, but zdani2 is not,
>because there is no blanu2. Without this, the example would indeed be
>questionable, but tanru internal connectives would then be even more
>useless, so I don't recommend this interpretation.

I understand. You thus save {ti blanu je zdani} from being useless non-
sense. (Even then, {ti blanu je zdani} instead of then-equivalent {ti
blanu gi'e zdani} seems like bad style to me. I think it is a bit of a
pity that it is a CLL example sentence.)

I suppose you also accept {blanu je zdani ti}, by the same reasoning?

>{zi'o} might be debatable, but {no da} is out of the question. There
>cannot be a hidden negation in a {zo'e}.

Indeed.

>Also, I think it's important to make a difference between connected
>seltau units, and connected tertau units. This thread is only about the
>latter. The expansion for connected seltau units is deliberately vague,
>and usually gets expanded into two seperate tanru. But this is probably
>for another thread.

Yes, I decided not to propose the seltau perspective because I find it
easier to explain the issue from the tertau perspective.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.