From araizen@newmail.net Sat Sep 01 17:44:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 17203 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2001 00:44:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158) by mta3 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2001 00:44:10 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.182.116]) by out.newmail.net ; Sun, 02 Sep 2001 03:45:12 +0200 Message-ID: <01a801c13350$ed266040$74b6003e@oemcomputer> To: "John Cowan" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] ko'a klama .isecaubo mi djuno Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 03:33:32 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" la .djan. cusku di'e > Adam Raizen scripsit: > > > I've come to the conclusion that "broda .i+stag+bo brode" doesn't > > necessarily imply both broda and brode (depending of the meaning of > > the tag). It's certainly not the case in "broda .inajenai brode". ".i" > > is supposed to be the unspecified logical connection between > > sentences, not a short version of ".ije". > > Actually, .i is a long scope version of .ije, not unspecified > connection. And i+stag+bo does assert both sentences unless > there is a negation involved. Well, in http://nuzban.wiw.org/archive/9403/msg00007.html, you said that ".i" is the vague sentence connective like "zo'e" is the vague sumti. In addition, assuming that ".i" always asserts both sentences gives us problems in cases like this. Why can ".ijenai" be allowed to deny the second bridi but ".isecaubo" not? mu'o mi'e .adam.