On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
Either I'm completely misunderstanding the situtations being described here, or people have rejected for soem reason the ji/je'i/ge'i/gi''i mechanism, which you have completely avoided (as has the webpage pointed to)??do djica lo ckafi ji lo tcati -- done.--gejyspaI think most of us would say you need {tu'a} there. ta'o nai The arguable problem with that is that connectives that fail to fully specify the truth table, such as {.o nai} and {.a}, are valid answers to a {ji} question, but may fail to inform the person asking the question of what they should do. When tsani and I talked about this we concluded that the natural workaround to this isn't a fundamentally different construct, but instead telling the person that they're being unhelpful, as you would in the analogous situation with English. For example:
A: .i do djica tu'a lo ckafi ji lo tcatiB: .i .aA: .i na'i .i sarcu fa lo nu mi djuno lo du'u mi bevri ma kau doB: .i ua .i .e naimi'e la latro'a mu'o--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.