Re: RET: jeks in descriptions

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la kir cusku di'e

> Let me avoid misleading semantic connotations and re-express
> my question in more abstract terms:
>
> (1)     lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e cu brodu
>
> (2)     Ex: broda(x, ko'a) & brodu(x)  &   Ey: broda(y, ko'e) & brodu(y)
>
> (3)     Ex: broda(x, ko'a) & broda(x, ko'e) & brodu(x)
>
> Is (1) equal to (2) or to (3) ?

It is equal to (3), as you show with your analysis.


> (4)     da poi broda be ko'a .e ko'e cu brodu
>
> (5)     da poi broda be ko'a cu brodu .ije de poi broda be ko'e cu brodu
>
> (6)     da poi broda be ko'a cu brodu .ije da poi broda be ko'e cu brodu
>
> My own answer is (1) = (4) = (6),
> but I'm newbie in lojban and can't be sure.

I think we can safely be sure that this is right, but you never know.


> And another related question: is it a way to connect bridi inside
> description? I mean something like
>
>       * le broda gi'e brode ku

There's {le broda je brode}, but that's a tanru.

There is no way of doing it in standard Lojban. And has a convention that
lets him do it as {le nuxire broda gi'e brode}, but I will let him explain
how that works, lest I be called a reformist. :)

Jorge