From mark@xxx.xxx Thu Sep 2 14:24:27 1999
X-Digest-Num: 229
Message-ID: <44114.229.1260.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: 2 Sep 1999 21:24:27 -0000
From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Variables and connectives.

>From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
>Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 13:13:39 PDT
>
>From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
>
>la mark cusku di'e
>
>>I figure I could avoid weird tanru and whatever by simply saying {da cmene 
>>mi .e do}.
>
>I tend to avoid logical connectives and probably would
>say {mi do mintu le ka cmene}, or more explicitly
>{mi do mintu le ka makau cmene ke'a}.

(maybe {ce'u} instead of {ke'a}? Not sure of the difference. {ke'a} is
for relative clauses, right? Definitely need to download a new cmavo list;
I don't have ce'u in the list, and still have po'o in POhO).

Yes, and someone else suggested in private email {lo do cmene cu cmene mi}
which works too. I just happened to think of the predicate-logic style,
with variables, and was wondering if I had it right. No claims that it's
preferable.

>> Note that {da cmene mi .e do} is equivalent to
>>{da cmene mi .ije da cmene do}.
>
>Correct. But, {mi e do se cmene da} means something
>different! It expands as {mi se cmene da ije do se
>cmene de}. This is just like {da cmene le re prenu}
>vs. {le re prenu cu se cmene da}. The first means that
>there is something that names each of the two people,
>and the second means that for each of them there is
>something that names them.

Whoa, you blew past me there. Why does the implicit prenex work
differently here? Oh, this is along the lines of moving the variable
across negation borders, and having to apply stuff like deMorgan's law?
Since the variable occurs after the {mi e do}, to move it into the prenex
it splits somehow? I'm still pretty confused, but I'm not disagreeing.
Can someone explain this?

~mark