Connective question

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!shoulson>]

Lately I have taken to trying to think of how to translate English
expressions that I hear on the radio into Lojban's structure (not
necessarily the words; my vocabulary isn't that big and I can't flip
through lists whilst driving.)  One struck me this morning and led to a
little thought about some of Lojban's connectives.  This is a pretty basic
question and I'm positive it's been dealt with before (I can't remember
reading about it anywhere in Lojban's literature, but I think it's there
somewhere).  Anyway, it was a commercial for some clothing sale, and it was
saying how they have "clothes for men and women".  Now.  Do they mean
"clothes for men as well as clothes for women" or "clothes which may be
worn both by men and women"?  I *think* these are plausible ways of
handling these readings in Lojban:

lo taxfu be lo'e nanmu .e lo'e ninmu == clothes for men and clothes for
        women; not necessarily that the same clothes be for both.

lo taxfu be lo'e nanmu ku jo'u lo ninmu == unisex clothes, for both sexes.

Is this a legitimate distinction between ".e" and "jo'u"?  ".e" is a
logical connective, and I imagine it as asserting the relevant bridi twice,
as it were, once for each of its arguments, with no connection in between.
"mi .e la djan. klama" means that I and John go/come, not necessarily that
we do so together or at the same time or having anything to do with one
another, while "mi jo'u la djan. klama" implies more of a connection, while
"mi joi la djan. klama" implies that we worked on it as a team, so the
action could really only be said to have been accomplished by both of us in
concert.

I realize that this example is open to other methods, including relative
clauses and the like.  Also, note that you could argue that unisex clothes
are not for "men AND women" but rather for "men OR women", and require the
use of ".a", the inclusive-OR or some such.  What are the opinions of you
folks out there?

P.S. I haven't forgotten about my Genesis project; I just now did a big
re-ordering:  I suddenly realized that I was unconsciously (or not)
translating into English and then into Lojban, losing the style rather
badly (forgive me, Nick!).  The major change was really the word order, so
I changed just about everything to the VSO order the original had, and also
used the "le mi co'e" construction less often, since the Hebrew has the
possessive afterwards and I can be more specific with that in Lojban
anyway.  One of these days I'll re-post and get the last few days done.

~mark