[lojban-beginners] Re: Connectives within abstractions

["Turniansky, Michael" <MICHAEL.A.TURNIANSKY@saic.com>]

Yes, JA does affect the grouping.  See Chapter 5, ex. 16.11 and 16.18
for instance.

 But yes, "mi dzukla bo djica janai klama" Does mean "I walk-desire if I
go", but remember, that means if you are not going, you may or may not
desire to walk.  The only way this sentence can be false is if you are
going somewhere, and don't actually desire walking whiles doing so.
            --gejsypa


-----Original Message-----
From: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
[mailto:lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org] On Behalf Of Karl Naylor
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:53 AM
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Connectives within abstractions

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}.