[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2





On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

ba gi broda gi zajba  ==  broda .i ba bo zajba
bai gi broda gi zajba  ==  zajba .i bai bo broda

Which reminds me - which way should
    broda .i ba je bai bo zajba
work, or should it be some mix? If a mix, how about with {joi}?

I guess it would be: "ba je se bai gi broda gi zajba" and the same for "joi", but we should unify all tags to work the same way.
 

> 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

But if broda doesn't occur, what is {lo nu broda} referring to here?

In that case the complement would have to be "lo nu na broda". So:

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

where "lo nu xu kau broda" is whichever of "lo nu broda" and "lo nu na broda" is true.

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.