* Tuesday, 2011-09-06 at 23:01 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> e.g. {zo'e broda ro da zo'e noi brode da} ->
> \forall x. \exists X. \exists Y. (brode(Y, x) /\ broda(X, x, Y))
>
> Generally, the quantifiers for the {zo'e}s would be inside any singular
> quantifiers, and similarly inside any negation
negation could be controversial, thinking about it...
{mi na gerku} and {zo'e na se gerku mi} do become
\not \exists X. gerku(mi, X),
but I think we want {lo plise cu na kukte} and hence {zo'e noi plise cu
na kukte} to be
\exists X. (plise(X) /\ \not kukte(X)).
In which case, it seems this kind of analysis of {zo'e} is inconsistent
with {lo}=={zo'e noi}.
Other than that, it seems to work... which tempts me to suggest that
{lo}=={zo'e noi} just isn't quite right.
> or tense quantification
> etc.
>
> Any problem with this? As far as I can see, it explains all common usage
> of {zo'e} - and also of {lo} and {le} with their {zo'e (n|v)oi}
> interpretations.
>
> Martin
Attachment:
pgpvJntSAo98h.pgp
Description: PGP signature