[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e
At 02:01 PM 1/28/03 -0800, Robin wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:52:46PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> >Another way, and this I actually don't mind much:
> >
> >lu'i .abu boi xi .ibu to .ibu cmima be tau .ibu toi
> >
> >That seems workable in practice.
>
> I haven't been paying attention but ...
>
> If I understand what you are trying for, the canonical way (i.e. the
> one I planned for) to express the above is:
> lu'i .abuboi xi veimo'e .ibu poi cmima tau .ibu
Usable, but it implies that .ibu isn't an operand by default, which
seems Very Bad.
.ibu can be an operand, an operator, or a sumti
By itself, it is closest to an operand, but when you want to qualify it by
saying it is a member of tau .ibu, the statement of membership is a mekso
(or in this case a sumti with restrictive clause) and needs to be marked as
such and THEN converted to an operand.
> Alternatively, you need an operator for membership:
> lu'i .abuboi xi vei .ibu na'u cmima tau .ibu
That annoys me less. Thanks.
For the original question - union as an operator would probably be "jorne
bu". I'll let someone else figuire out intersection.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org