Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

I don't know, the "TT-skimming" semantics seem to give useful results in
at least some cases.

Probably most usefully, {broda na .i ja ba bo brode} would mean "if
broda, then afterwards brode".

Then there's the {ja} case I referred to in CLL, which seems reasonable.

For {jo}, it doesn't have an easy translation to english, but seems
plausibly useful anyway; e.g. {do ba prije gi'o ja'e bo snada} -> "you
will be wise and therefore successful, or neither".

So something like this:

broda .i [jek tag] bo brode

-> broda .i jek brode .i (je?) ga nai ge broda gi brode gi [tag] gi broda gi brode

(I don't remember now if forethought tag-connective needs a "se" or not with respect to afterthought tag-connective.)

So for half of the connectives (those with TT F rather than TT T), the tag is more or less meaningless. Those would be: jenai, naje, najenai, najanai, jonai, naju, sejunai, and the contradiction one that lojban doesn't have.

I think it might also make sense to analyse tag-connectives as if they were ordinary tags on the second connectand, with the first connectand acting as their complement, so:

broda .i [jek tag] bo brode

-> broda .i [jek] brode [(se} tag] lo nu broda

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.