BPFK Section: Non-logical Connectives

[Gleki Arxokuna]

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Non-logical+Connectives

mi joi ry. ze'a casnu lo lijda ctuca tadji

Me and R have been discussing religious teaching methods.

Isn't this example wrong?

What about the other two examples? Shouldn't {jo'u} or {ce} work better here:

la .djan. joi la .pitr. cu re mei

John and Peter are two.

la jegvon cu cevni le xriso joi le xebro joi le muslo

Jehovah is the god of the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Additionally I suggest the following for {pi'u}:
lo plise onai bo lo perli pi'u lo xunre a lo pelxu cu vomei

The cross-product of apples and pears that are either red or yellos has 4 members.

Is this correct and can you provide a more natural translation?

[Alex Burka]

Sounds like someone needs to weigh in on what it means to make a mass of people.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:49 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Non-logical+Connectives

mi joi ry. ze'a casnu lo lijda ctuca tadji

Me and R have been discussing religious teaching methods.

Isn't this example wrong?

"joi" has several different definitions. Two popular ones are:

(1) "ko'a joi ko'e" is plural and its members satisfy the predicate in which it appears as an argument collectively.

(2) "ko'a joi ko'e" is singular, and it refers to a group whose members are ko'a and ko'e.

There are probably other definitions. The example is perfectly fine with (1), and I don't find it problematic with (2) either, unless for some reason you don't want to allow a group of people as the x1 of casnu, but I don't see why a group wouldn't be able to discuss something. 

 

What about the other two examples? Shouldn't {jo'u} or {ce} work better here:

la .djan. joi la .pitr. cu re mei

John and Peter are two.

With our current understanding of "mei", this one would go better with definition (1) than (2). 

la jegvon cu cevni le xriso joi le xebro joi le muslo

Jehovah is the god of the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims.

It doesn't seem to be a problem with either definition.

I would eliminate "joi" from the language, or better make it synonymous with "jo'u".

mu'o mi'e xorxes 

[Jorge Llambías]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:16 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Additionally I suggest the following for {pi'u}:
lo plise onai bo lo perli pi'u lo xunre a lo pelxu cu vomei

The cross-product of apples and pears that are either red or yellos has 4 members.

Is this correct and can you provide a more natural translation?

Let's see:

lo plise .o nai bo lo perli pi'u lo xunre .a lo pelxu cu vo mei

lo selcmipi'i be lo plise .o nai lo perli bei lo xunre ,a lo pelxu cu vo mei

lo poi'i ke'a selcmipi'i lo plise .o nai lo perli lo perli ,a lo pelxu cu vo mei

lo poi'i go ga ke'a selcmipi'i lo plise lo xunre  

               gi ke'a selcmipi'i lo plise lo pelxu

           gi nai ga ke'a selcmipi'i lo perli lo xunre  

                    gi ke'a selcmipi'i lo perli lo pelxu cu vo mei

The cross product of apples and red things is not apples that are red, it's the pairs whose first member is an apple and whose second member is a red thing. So if we have two apples and two red things, their cross product is the four pairs: (apple1, red-thing1), (apple2, red-thing1), (apple1, red-thing2) and (apple2, red-thing2).

So I don't think your sentence means what you think it means.