From jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sat Jun 19 16:52:18 1999
X-Digest-Num: 173
Message-ID: <44114.173.1025.959273824@eGroups.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 20:52:18 -0300
From: "=?us-ascii?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: le bruna solri e le mensi lunra


>>"all praise is Yours, all glory, all honour and all blessings". Any ideas?
>
>ro bu'a cei zanskudu'a ja zanfridu'a ja zansi'adu'a ja zancesydu'a zo'u
>broda do
>
>???


I suppose you mean {bu'a} instead of {broda} at the end.

But I think it doesn't work. {ro bu'a cei zanskudu'a zo'u bu'a do}
is equivalent to {zanskudu'a do}. For every predicate bu'a which
is "zanskudu'a" (and there is only one like it, isn't there?) then
{bu'a do} is true. That only says that {zanskudu'a do} is true,
nothing more.

{ro bu'a} quantifies over predicates, not over situations in
which a given predicate is true, which I suppose is what
you had in mind. Something like "for every situation in which
the predicate {zanskudu'a} holds, then {do} is what fills the
x2 place". But that's not what {ro bu'a} does.

Another question is what {ro bu'a cei broda ja brode}
means. Is that every predicate which is {broda je brode},
or is it every predicate which is either {broda} or {brode}?
You use it as if it was the second, but the normal use of
{cei} would be the first. Since {ro bu'a} in the prenex
is already an exception, I guess another exception
won't make matters much worse.

I think your idea could be expressed as something like:

ro da poi zanskudu'a ke'a zo'u da du do
For every x such that x is given praise, x = you.

That would work, but the original doesn't quite say that.
If praise can be a {se dunda} (something given), then
it can also be a {se ponse}, (something owned), right?
Because "all praise is yours" does not just say that
all praise is given to you. It says that it belongs to
you and therefore _should_ be given to you.

co'o mi'e xorxes