Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Translation request

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 04:39:37 +0000

la djorden cusku di'e

>Interesting idea, but I don't think it is consistent with the book's
>description of jo'u. The book says jo'u considers the elements as
>individuals, but they are inseperable. You're example, expands like
>so:
>	ge ko'a .e ko'e gi ko'a joi ko'e klama be le zarci be'o cei broda
>	ko'a .e ko'e broda .ije ko'a joi ko'e broda
>	ko'a broda .ije ko'e broda .ije ko'a joi ko'e broda
>
>I don't think this is true for jo'u, because it allows the arguments
>to be seperated out and thus makes the claims about just one at a
>time.

It doesn't allow them to be separated. For the whole thing to be
true {ko'a joi ko'e broda} has to be true and that provides the
together part. Are you saying that if {ko'a jo'u ko'e broda}
is true, then {ko'a broda} cannot be true, or just that it need
not be true?

>I think it's a bit more like {piro lu'o ko'a joi ko'e}. But that's
>probably not quite right.

I think {ko'a joi ko'e} by itself is already the whole mass.
But that the whole mass does something does not mean that
each member does it. {ko'a joi ko'e cu cikre le karce} means
that they fixed it together. In that case {ko'a jo'u ko'e
cu cikre le karce} would be false, because each of them did
not fix it. So in some places {jo'u} would not make sense.
It is hard to think of a contrasting jo'u/joi sumti example
where both make sense yet are clearly different.

>broda jo'u brode makes sense in that it would prevent an expanded
>interpretation:
>
>	ti xunre je blabi ractu
>could be (but not neccesarily)
>	ti xunre ractu .ije blabi ractu
>
>If what I meant was that it was pink, i'd say
>	ti xunre joi blabi ractu

Yes, I suppose.

>(contrived) If I meant it had a more or less even distribution
>of white coloring and red coloring (i.e. if every other hair were
>a different color), such that it couldn't be called just white or
>just red, I might say
>	ti xunre jo'u blabi ractu

Or, for the same situation, one might claim that
ti xunre ractu gi'e blabi ractu gi'e xunre joi blabi ractu
I'm not sure why you say it couldn't be called just white or
just red.

>The nonlogical conncectives are much clearer for me with sumti
>though, so I'm probably wrong :)

Deffinitely. They've always been somewhat mysterious in tanru.
(And we haven't even touched the set connectives.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx