Re: Conjunctives, etc...

On 5/13/07, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
> Basically, it's possible to contract "logical connectiv" and "set
> theoretical connectiv" usage. To have an example where these two would
> contrast, let's say, "red and blue hats". This can mean either
> 1) red hats and blue hats; "red and blue" as an union of two adjectivs
> 2) hats with both red and blue on them; "red and blue" as a conjunction of
> two adjectivs
[snip]
> (I also suspect that I might be re-inventing Lojban here... am I? It
> wouldn't be much of a leap to explicitely bring predicate logic into this.)
Not sure whether you're re-inventing Lojban, but I *think* it makes
the distinction like this:

{lo blanu je xunre mapku} for "red hats and blue hats", and {lo blanu
joi xunre mapku} (or maybe {lo blanu jo'u xunre mapku}) for
"red-and-blue hats". (I suppose the sentence with {joi} means that the
colours are mixed together, while the one with {jo'u} just means that
the hats are both blue and red, e.g. in stripes.)

I believe that sumti connectives in selma'o A {which includes {.e})
make basically two statements: {lo gerku .e lo mlatu cu danlu} "dogs
and cats are animals" is equivalent to {lo gerku cu danlu .i je lo
mlatu cu danlu} "dogs are animals and cats are animals". I'm not so
sure about how tanru connectives in selma'o JA (which includes {je})
do this, too.

Hmm... the cmavo list does explicitly call A and JA logical
connectives, and JOI (including {jo'u} and {joi}) non-logical
connectives.

So yes, it's possible that you're re-inventing (part of) Lojban here.
(As you said, not that surprising.)

mu'o mi'e .filip.
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>