{gi'e} and overlapping arrays
gleki
coi ro do.
I wanna say
{Berries are red and green}
I wanna say
{Berries are red and tasty}
and I wanna say
{Berries are red and parts of plants}
In the first example I mean that some berries are red, some are green but they can't be both.
In the second example I mean that some berries are red, some are tasty and (may be) some have both properties
In the third example I mean that berries are all red and are all parts of plants.
When I try translating all 3 sentences I just come up with the same phrase
{lo jbari cu xunre gi'e crino}.
Can you fix it ?
ianek
if you want to say that those are the only possibilities, otherwise
{lo jbari ku xunre i lo drata jbari ku crino}
{lo jbari ku xunre i lo jbari ku kukte} if you want to say that some
berries are red and some berries are tasty. {lo jbari ku xunre gi'a
kukte} if you want to say that all berries are either red, tasty or
both.
{ro jbari ku xunre gi'e spati pagbu}, that one was easy.
mu'o mi'e ianek
Jorge Llambías
>
> In the first example I mean that some berries are red, some are green but
> they can't be both.
xunre gi'e crino vau fa su'o jbari .i ku'i no jbari cu xunre gi'e crino
> In the second example I mean that some berries are red, some are tasty and
> (may be) some have both properties
xunre gi'e kukte vau fa su'o jbari .i ju'o cu'i su'o jbari cu xunre gi'e kukte
> In the third example I mean that berries are all red and are all parts of
> plants.
ro jbari cu xunre gi'e pagbu lo spati
mu'o mi'e xorxes
ianek
Where can I learn about this {vau fa} construction?
I thought {broda gi'e brode vau fa da} is equivalent to {da broda gi'e
brode} and it implies that it's the same "da" that does both broda and
brode. Where can I learn about it? I thought I'd find something in CLL
14.9, but nope.
mu'o mi'e ianek
Jorge Llambías
>
> I thought {broda gi'e brode vau fa da} is equivalent to {da broda gi'e
> brode} and it implies that it's the same "da" that does both broda and
> brode.
If you replace "da" with "ko'a", that's exactly right. Also "PA da
zo'u broda gi'e brode vau fa da" is equivalent to "PA da zo'u da broda
gi'e brode".
Quantifiers and logical connectives are both bridi operators, and they
don't generally commute, so you can't just move one past the other,
ianek
andred", but "something is green and something is red"? I can't say
thatI like it. How can I say it to mean the former? Not using
{je},because it binds possible further arguments, like {da dunda je
lebna}implies that someone gives and takes the same thing to and from
thesame person (unless I'm mistaken).
Janek
red", but "something is green and something is red"? I can't say that
I like it. How can I say it to mean the former? Not using {je},
because it binds possible further arguments, like {da dunda je lebna}
implies that someone gives and takes the same thing to and from the
same person (unless I'm mistaken).
mu'o mi'e ianek
2011/12/22 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-b...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginne...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.
>
Jorge Llambías
> So, {da crino gi'e xunre} doesn't mean "something is both green and
> red", but "something is green and something is red"?
No, it does mean the first:
(1) [su'o] da crino gi'e xunre
= su'o da zo'u da crino gi'e xunre
= su'o da zo'u ge da crino gi da xunre
> I can't say that
> I like it. How can I say it to mean the former?
The other one is:
(2) crino gi'e xunre vau fa su'o da
= ge crino fa su'o da gi xunre fa su'o da
= ge su'o da zo'u da crino gi su'o da zo'u da xunre
In (1), su'o comes first and thus has scope over gi'e. In (2) gi'e
comes first and has scope over su'o.
ianek
> "PA da
> zo'u broda gi'e brode vau fa da" is equivalent to "PA da zo'u da broda
> gi'e brode".