xu do sisku lo lojbo tcana
  [Home] [Manage]

Posting mode: Reply

Painter: Width: Height: Source:

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Subject (encouraged)
Password (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.


The definition of {zo gerku} is "x1 is a dog/canine of species/breed x2".

So for {la djak. e la ripr. gerku}, does this mean that Jack and Ripper are the same dog?

>> No.390  


No. You might want to think of such definitions as "x1 is an example of..."

[zo <<.e] usually means "...and..., treated seperately/individually". [zo <<joi] is an "and" that treats them as a mass.

Also, my rule of thumb is: Lojban will usually use whatever is more useful, likely, logical, and probably wide-spread. By this rule, [zo <<gerku] is means the aforementioned definition because that one will most likely be more useful and used more often. It also is more probable ([zo'o .ui]most people would not immediately think of the snag that you did).

Of course, this does not mean that the dogs can not be the same, nor treated as a mass. But I would use [zo <<goi] and/or [zo <<joi], respectively, in order to eliminate such possible questions.

Hope this helps.

>> No.394  

{.e} can always be expanded to {.i je}:

la djak .e la ripr cu gerku
= la djak cu gerku .i je la ripr cu gerku

They don't have to be the same dog, nor of the same breed.

Delete Post []