* Tuesday, 2014-11-18 at 18:23 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
> I'm thinking the first connectand is independent of the tag-carrying
> connectand. The tag-carrying connectand might also imply the first
> connectand, but that's not necessarily the case for all tags.
OK. That does mean there's no real co-ordination problem with {je ba
bo}. (But there still is with {je nai ca bo}, which is what the end of
this email is about.)
> > Also if so, actually - I wouldn't understand {ca ko'u broda gi'e ba bo
> > brode} to imply that {ca ko'u brode}, but rather that {ca ko'u ba
> > brode}.
>
> Yes, but ba what? "ba ko'u" or "ba lo nu broda"?
Both, and more precisely ba an event of broda which is ca ko'u, but not
itself having to be ca ko'u.
> > So I guess this kind of reasoning would have {broda .i je nai ca bo
> > brodo} mean something like "broda occurs, but broda never occurs
> > simultaneously with brodo"? Whereas I would have expected it to mean
> > something more like "broda occurs some time when brodo doesn't".
>
> I hope you are not thinking that by rejecting an equivalence of "lo" with
> "su'o" I'm somehow embracing an equivalence with "ro".
No no. I'm assuming that, in the current discussion, whenever you say
{lo nu broda}, you mean it to refer to the kind of {nu broda}. The
quantifications in my english sentences were over time, not over
instances.
> I think it just means "broda occurs, but not simultaneously with
> brodo".
I think the english is ambiguous there. To disambiguate: do you mean
this to imply that broda does not occur simultaneously with brodo?