Subject: Re: [lojban] ko'a klama .isecaubo mi djuno

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 03:33:32 +0200

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.