Re: afterthought logical connection

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la djan spusku di'e

> > (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".

I still don't get it. Since we were talking about "ja", why bring in
"je" and not any of the others? Besides, what is the "javni" doing
there? Or was it meant to be kanxyjavyvlina?

[...]
> 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

You probably meant:

          ta blanu jo lenku lorxu
>
> 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.

Ok, but that doesn't really answer the question.

What's the difference between:

        ta blanu jo lenku

and:
        ta blanu gi'o lenku

Or between:

        ta blanu jo lenku lorxu

interpreted as:

        ta lorxu noi blanu jo lenku

and:
        ta lorxu noi blanu gi'o lenku


Jorge