[lojban-beginners] Re: Syntax vs semantics for conjunctions

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 7/5/06, Newton, Philip <Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de> wrote:

> Does that mean that, for example {mi viska lo cukta .e lo xatra .e lo penbi}
> is equivalent not only to {mi viska gege lo cukta gi lo xatra gi lo penbi}
> (I think that's the equivalent parse) but also to {mi viska ge lo cukta gige
> lo xatra gi lo penbi}?

For {.e} yes, because it is associative. For non-associative connectives,
for example {.o}, no.

This is actually different from the case of {ce}, because {.e} doesn't really
introduce any new entity the way {ce} does.

> And is it possible to express the latter sentence
> using {.e} but without {ge}?

Yes. Either {mi viska lo cukta .e ke lo xatra .e lo penbi}
or {mi viska lo cukta .e lo xatra .e bo lo penbi} will do that,
although in the case of {.e} this doesn't really change anything.

mu'o mi'e xorxes