Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru?

[thanatos@dim.com]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:07:11 -0500, Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>What Pierre and pycyn said is what I believe too. I want to see how
>thanatos, and perhaps others, justify their position that "I hunt fish
>and deer" is "mi kalte lo finpe je mirli", given those questions.

Hey, I din't say that.  I said that {mi finpe je mirli kalte} could mean
"I hunt fish and deer", along with it possibly meaning other things,
straight from {ta melbi je nixli ckule} meaning "That is a beautiful
school and also for girls" or "That is a school for girls and beautiful
things".

> 1. Would you say that {lo finpe .e lo mirli cu finpe je mirli}?

Nope.  {lo finpe finpe je mirli} is false because a {lo finpe cu mirli}
is false unless we have strangely broad definitions of fish-ness and
deer-ness. 

{lo mirli cu finpe je mirli} is similarly weird because while {lo mirli
cu mirli} is true, one would wonder why "finpe" was mentioned at all if
we weren't using the "je" to claim {lo mirli .a lo se mirli ga finpe gi
se finpe}.  Either it's false or we've inserted "finpe" with contrary
clues to what its sumti are.

>2a. If so, since .e is rather well defined, would you then accept that
> {lo finpe cu finpe je mirli}?

Part of the answer above.  No, because we're definitely claiming {lo
finpe cu mirli} there.

>> > 2b. If not, what does {lo finpe je mirli} refer to?

Something that's definitely a {lo mirli} and strongly suggested to be
{lo finpe}, which doesn't make much sense, and if that's not the case
why was "finpe" mentioned at all in a context where we're singling out
the x1 place of selbri?

>I suppose that a lot of context is missing now that I've moved this to
>the other list.

I guess my argument is basically that "finpe je mirli" isn't a single
selbri with a defined meaning any more than "mi .e do" refers to a
single sumti.  {ta finpe je mirli} is less ambiguous than {ta finpe
mirli} but more ambiguous than {ta finpe gi'e mirli}.  The "je" removes
the unspecified relation from the tanru that allows such things as
"selzgike junla" to mean "metronome".  Jeks make simultaneous claims
with the two selbri, but without the defined sumti-assignment of giheks.
Which sumti are assigned to "brode" in "brode je broda" should still be
strongly suggested from context, as with tanru, and the most common use
will be identical to a gihek, but I don't think it should be defined to
be only that.  

And I'm outvoted so unless someone requests clarification I won't argue
it any more. :)  It's really just based on logical operators being used
to makes claims about the truth of two statements, and wanting to use
jeks closer to that bridi-level of truth than in creating a selbri that
make simultaneous claims about their sumti.  Not as selbri-combining but
as bridi-multiplying, if that makes any sense.

-- 
EWC