Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Non-logical AND in Tanru?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:27:41 EST

In a message dated 2/13/2002 5:07:36 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I finally thought of an example that might clarify things a bit more.
> If {mi ti poi xunre cu klama}, am I a possible referent of {lo xunre je
> klama}? I'm easily {lo xunre klama}, but is {ti xunre gi'e se klama mi}
> enough to claim {mi ti xunre je klama}? Of at least one of the given
> sumti {xunre} is true at the same time {klama} is true for all of them,
> so two true claims are made of the given sumti with the two given
> selbri, if the choice of sumti for {xunre} is ambiguous

As I said, keeping straight about quotes is the fundamental tool here. I 
assume you mean (since what you said is nonsense as written) "If {mi ti poi 
xunre cu klama} is true," . In that case, I don't see you as a possible 
referent of {lo xunre je klama}, because, even if you are a goer, you 
(presumably) not red. You are not {lo xunre klama}, since you certainly are 
not a Lojban expression, but you are a possible referent of that expression, 
on one reading of the l-selbri -- as from {klama lo xunre}.
{je} indicates a different relation from simple concatenation -- a more 
precise one, for one thing, pretty much class intersection (though I can 
imagine an argument on this) in primary position. And your still aren't red.
The last sentence is a bit muddled, but the Lojban referred to makes only one 
truth claim, not two ({je} doesn't split here, and if it did it would still 
only make one truth claim) and {mi} is unequivocally the first place of 
{xunre} as of {klama}.

<That ambiguity could lead to things like {mi tu berti je klama do}
having as a possible interpretation, "I am going to that yonder from
you, that yonder being north", and that may be a little too ambiguous,
but it makes jeks more useful than forcing that to mean "I am going to
that yonder from you and I am north of something.">

As noted, I am not sure that there is an ambiguity in the earlier sentence, 
though the possible floating {ti} is a problem afor easy interpetation. In 
so far as doing a {gi'e} transformation of {je} is legit (not much I think) 
your sentence says that I am north of yonder thing from your frame of 
reference and going to it from you. This is admittedly clearer than the 
intersection reading and probably not practically different. It does not 
have either of your suggested interpretations, nor do I see how this case is 
like the one in the previous paragraph.