In a message dated 2/13/2002 5:07:36 PM Central Standard Time, thanatos@dim.com writes:I finally thought of an example that might clarify things a bit more. As I said, keeping straight about quotes is the fundamental tool here. I assume you mean (since what you said is nonsense as written) "If {mi ti poi xunre cu klama} is true," . In that case, I don't see you as a possible referent of {lo xunre je klama}, because, even if you are a goer, you (presumably) not red. You are not {lo xunre klama}, since you certainly are not a Lojban _expression_, but you are a possible referent of that _expression_, on one reading of the l-selbri -- as from {klama lo xunre}. {je} indicates a different relation from simple concatenation -- a more precise one, for one thing, pretty much class intersection (though I can imagine an argument on this) in primary position. And your still aren't red. The last sentence is a bit muddled, but the Lojban referred to makes only one truth claim, not two ({je} doesn't split here, and if it did it would still only make one truth claim) and {mi} is unequivocally the first place of {xunre} as of {klama}. <That ambiguity could lead to things like {mi tu berti je klama do} having as a possible interpretation, "I am going to that yonder from you, that yonder being north", and that may be a little too ambiguous, but it makes jeks more useful than forcing that to mean "I am going to that yonder from you and I am north of something."> As noted, I am not sure that there is an ambiguity in the earlier sentence, though the possible floating {ti} is a problem afor easy interpetation. In so far as doing a {gi'e} transformation of {je} is legit (not much I think) your sentence says that I am north of yonder thing from your frame of reference and going to it from you. This is admittedly clearer than the intersection reading and probably not practically different. It does not have either of your suggested interpretations, nor do I see how this case is like the one in the previous paragraph. |