Re: RET: jeks in descriptions

[Cyril Slobin <slobin@FEAST.FE.MSK.RU>]

coi.

> > What
> >
> >     mi nelci lo cukta be fi la lem. .e la borxes.
> >
> > means? Does it mean that I like books by Lem and books by Borjes
> > or that I like books written by Lem and Borjes together?
>
> The former. .e is a logical connective, which effectively means that it
> distributes in cases like this; the sentence is equivalent to
>
>         mi nelci lo cukta be fi la lem. .ije mi nelci lo cukta be fi la
>         borxes.

It's obviously so when sumti of main bridi are connected,
but not so obviously when sumti inside descriptions are.
Let me avoid misleading semantic connotations and re-express
my question in more abstract terms:

(1)     lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e cu brodu

(2)     Ex: broda(x, ko'a) & brodu(x)  &   Ey: broda(y, ko'e) & brodu(y)

(3)     Ex: broda(x, ko'a) & broda(x, ko'e) & brodu(x)

Is (1) equal to (2) or to (3) ? If I have understood you well,
you claim that (1) is equal to (2) and not to (3). Right?

But what about following:

(4)     da poi broda be ko'a .e ko'e cu brodu

(5)     da poi broda be ko'a cu brodu .ije de poi broda be ko'e cu brodu

(6)     da poi broda be ko'a cu brodu .ije da poi broda be ko'e cu brodu

Is (1) equal to (4)?
Is (4) equal to (5) or to (6)?

My own answer is (1) = (4) = (6),
but I'm newbie in lojban and can't be sure.

On the other hand, I belive that everybody agree that
(5) = (2) and (6) = (7) and (7) = (3).

(7)     Ex: broda(x, ko'a) & brodu(x)   &   broda(x, ko'e) & brodu(x)

Summary: (1) = (4) = (6) = (7) = (3).
Where is the weak link in this chain (if is)?

And another related question: is it a way to connect bridi inside
description? I mean something like

      * le broda gi'e brode ku

but this is ungammatical...

co'o mi'e. kir.

--
Cyril Slobin <slobin@fe.msk.ru> `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
<http://www.fe.msk.ru/~slobin/> `it means just what I choose it to mean'