[lojban-beginners] Re: Connectives within abstractions

["Karl Naylor" <karl.org@gmail.com>]

On 12/03/07, Turniansky, Michael <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com> wrote:

> "mi dzukla djica janai klama" => "I walk-go-type-of-want  if I
> walk-going-type-of-go"  But I haven't a clue what a walk-desire might
> be, (although it might be a desire to walk, I suppose.  In case this
> statement says if you are walking, then you want to walk).

I was aiming for "I walk-desire (ie. desire to walk) if-I go".
However, your translation suggests that {janai} interferes with the
usual left-grouping and binds {djica} and {klama} tightly, whereas I
was hoping that it wouldn't.  In that case I think I want "mi dzukla
bo djica janai klama".  Is that right at last?  :)

> "mi djica be lenu dzukla kei janai klama"  would be exactly the same
> meaning as without the "be" because the janai is still within the scope
> of the "nu".  But if I had used "ku" instead of "kei", then "mi djica be

.ua I was confused because I forgot that {nu} would make a selbri for
{janai} to connect, and therefore I couldn't find any selbri that it
could attach to.  I see now.

> go", while "mi djica lenu dzukla ku janai klama"  would be ungrammatical
> because janai ould be trying to link a sumti to a selbri, which is a

Yes, this is what I was thinking of earlier when I wanted that {be}.