Re: afterthought logical connection

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> Colin says (about gi'a and ja)
> 
> > Syntactically there is of course a difference in scope - any following
> > sumti apply to only the te kanxyjvavlina.
> 
> Yes, although that is fixed by using {vau} before the sumti. (I'm not
> sure what kanxyjvavlina means, why not just the te vlina?)

I take it to mean "conjunction or alternation, as the case may be".

> > In particular, 'da sampymau binxo gi'a plujymau binxo' is
> > by definition synonymous with 'da sampymau binxo .ija da
> > plujymau binxo'. On the other hand, 'da sampymau bo
> > binxo ja plujymau bo binxo' may be pragmatically
> > very close, but it is not so expandable.
> >
> > The difference is that the first case makes two separate
> > claims, but connects them logically. The second makes
> > a single claim - though I'm not entirely sure what it
> > means that's different.
> 
> That's exactly how I see it too.
> 
> At least part of the problem (if it can be called a problem)
> is that a tanru gives a single relationship, more or less fuzzily
> defined in terms of the components of the tanru. But there
> is nothing fuzzy about logical connectives, and if we allow
> them to act fuzzily within tanru, this may end up spreading
> to the other uses of the logical connectives, spoiling one of
> the main characteristics of Lojban.

Actually, pc long ago illustrated one difference.  Consider:

1)	ta blanu lorxu gi'o lenku lorxu
	that is-a-blue fox if-and-only-if is-a-cold fox
	That is a blue fox if and only if it is a cold fox.

vs.

2)	ta blanu gi'o lenku lorxu
	That is-a-(blue if-and-only-if cold) fox

Example 1 is a mere logical connection between propositions: it does not entail
that "ta" refers to a fox of any sort.  Example 2, on the other hand, does so
entail: it claims that "ta" refers to a fox, one which has the property of
being blue if and only if it is cold.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.