Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Robin on cmene

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 07:02:36 PDT

la aulun cusku di'e

>la lojbab. cusku di'e
> > pa lu'a la mixael ce la maikyl ce la maik,l ce la micael [lu'u]
> > One from the individuals making up the set {la mx, la my, la m,l,
>la mc}
>
>Fine, but *logically* is this construction really necessary? (The
>.o-logic seems to be quite similar to 'or' in natural language: one
>is allowed to endlessly add or-sumti.)

But .o does not mean any 'or', it means 'iff' (if and only if).

I thought you were saying that all four statements were equivalent,
the same statement using different names to refer to the same person.
If that is not what you meant, who are those four people you named?

Exclusive 'or' is .onai, but multiple .onai are not
equivalent to the {pa lu'a} construction. For example
(A xor B) xor C, for true A, true B, true C
gives true, which is not what you want.

There is no easy connective construction to get the {pa lu'a}
equivalent for more than two connectands. Very unintuitive,
but that's how it works.

co'o mi'e xorxes

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com