[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djan cusku di'e
> Jorge Llamb?as scripsit:
> > {ro lu'a ko'a e ko'e} is equivalent to {ro lu'a ko'a ku'a ko'e},
> > each member of the intersection of ko'a and ko'e, and {ro lu'a
> > ko'a a ko'e} is equivalent to {ro lu'a ko'a jo'e ko'e}, each member
> > of the union of ko'a and ko'e.
>
> Entering a belated protest to this. Logical connection, except for
> tanru logical connection, *always* factors out to the bridi level.
> So "ro lu'a ko'a .e ko'e" means "[li'o] ro lu'a ko'a [li'o] .ije
> [li'o] ro lu'a ko'e".
Aaaaaaaaaarghhhhhhh! Please tell me that this is not true.
Logical connection always factors out to a bridi level, but
LAhEs create a subordinate bridi, much like sumti tails.
{lo broda be ko'a e ko'e} factors out as {da poi ge ke'a
broda ko'a gi ke'a broda ko'e}. It does not factor out
as {... lo broda be ko'a ... ije ... lo broda be ko'e...}.
Please confirm this?
If you agree that LAhEs expand as lo broda be, then clearly
{lu'a ko'a e ko'e} has to be a member of both ko'a and ko'e.
It is clear that {tu'a ko'a e ko'e} can't be
{... tu'a ko'a ... ije ... tu'a ko'e ...} if we wan't {tu'a}
to work as we want it to work in intensional contexts.
> BTW, as a byproduct of "JCB speaks!" I now grasp that jo'u, the mystery
> JOI, is designed to create Collectives, and is the true equivalent
> of Loglan ze, which is Loglan's only non-logical connective.
Then we should scrap jo'u from Lojban, which already has joi corresponding
to loi and ce corresponding to lo'i, so whichever of those gadri handles
collectives, we already have a corresponding connective. jo'u is
redundant to either joi or ce.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com