[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [engelang] Xorban Development

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote: 

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> I assume
> that
>
> la grka je xkra blba
>
> ... only works with a Lojbanesque joi-reading.

I think it's the same case actually. If "je" meant the same event you
wouldn't need "ju"!

Right, I was just wondering if binding la grka just once would make a difference.

 
> We have no choice but to
> say "najo"* with:
>
> la grka na jo nkna fetsa

I wouldn't have a problem with "ja" there either.

Yeah "na jo" is probably fussy here, even assuming that all dogs are in fact the one or the other.
 
 
> *By the way, has the time come to boldly declare "jo" Xorban's
> exclusive-or operator?

I did consider it too. It does seem to be used more than iff, and
either can be got from the other.


Did you and And decide on a way to say "but"?  I haven't been following all the CV'V stuff.  Now that "nu" has been created, I was wondering how that would work with 'but':

je klma'a nu klme'e
I am going and you are or are not going.
=I'm going and maybe you too.

j[but] klma'a nu klme'e
=I'm going but you may be not going.
=I'm going but maybe you not.

je nu klme'e klma'a
You are or are not going and I am going.
You may be going, and I am going. -- not sure if this sounds right.

j[but] nu klme'e klma'a
You may be not going, but I am.

Any ideas on that?  Has that been covered?