Lojban In General

Posted by lukebergen on Thu 03 of Dec, 2009 12:56 GMT posts: 493

I still consider myself fairly new, but I'll take a stab at these.

I'm not sure what you mean by {cutka} but yes {ti .a ta} is a single sumti

I don't think they {kei} are elidable since you could say something like {mi
gleki le nu mi citka lo plise kei1 .e lo perli kei2}
depending on which of those {kei} I choose to use I may be saying "I am
happy about eating apples ... and something to do with a pear" or I might be
saying "I am happy about eating apples and pears". So I don't think {kei}
is elidable in this situation. But I could be wrong, the default may be the
kei2 in which case it's elidable if you really intend {lo perli} to be
inside the abstraction with {lo plise}.

Does that sound about right?

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi there, I've a couple of questions on logical connectives (well, I
> actually would have more but I'll save the others for another time
> ).
>
> Is it correct to say that when using logical connectives like in: {mi
> cutka ti .a ta} , {ti .a ta} is a single sumti?
>
> Also, if I had abstractions {le nu ... kei .e le nu ... kei .e le nu
> ... kei} are the {kei} elidable?
>
>
> remod.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
>
>

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Remo Dentato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it correct to say that when using logical connectives like in: {mi
> cutka ti .a  ta} , {ti .a ta} is a single sumti?

>From a grammatical (syntactical) point of view, the connected
construction functions as a single sumti, yes.

>From a logical point of view, they are two sumti. "mi citka ti .a ta"
is logically equivalent to "mi citka ti .ija mi citka ta". This
differs from the "non-logical" sumti connectives, for which the syntax
does match the logical structure.

> Also, if I had abstractions {le nu ... kei .e le nu ... kei .e le nu
> ... kei} are the {kei} elidable?

It depends on what the "..." is. Sometimes kei will be elidable, sometimes not.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by remod on Thu 03 of Dec, 2009 12:56 GMT posts: 39

Thank you guys.

I think I understand a little bit more.

To try learning lojban I'm translating a book.

I'm sure I will never finish the translation, but I hope I'll learn
something by trying.

remod.

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Posted by seryf on Thu 03 of Dec, 2009 12:56 GMT posts: 71

what are you translating?

Posted by remod on Thu 03 of Dec, 2009 12:56 GMT posts: 39

An Italian book. I've just done two or three sentences

http://code.google.com/p/c-libutl/wiki/binxo_budas

On Sep 11, 2009 9:58pm, Seth thirderivative@aol.com> wrote:
> what are you translating?