Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r6x7c-00005bC; Mon, 14 Nov 94 10:50 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0036; Mon, 14 Nov 94 10:50:43 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0033; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 10:50:41 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9452; Mon, 14 Nov 1994 09:47:33 +0100 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 00:48:44 -0800 Reply-To: Gerald Koenig Sender: Lojban list From: Gerald Koenig Subject: lo, da poi To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1255 Lines: 31 I continue to believe that "da poi" is not a substitute fo "lo" in all contexts. Here is another illustration: 1). re lo ci gerku cu blabi Exactly three dogs exist, two are white. 2). re da poi ci gerku cu blabi (putting da poi for lo) Parser output: 1'). ({ } cu {blabi VAU}) 2').({<[re BOI] da> } VAU) The first," lo" sentence I am able to express completely in first order predicate calculus with equality. If there is interest I will post it. It translates cleanly into English too. The second "da poi" sentence I am unable to express meaningfully in pc. In English I come up with something like " there exists an x, there exists an x, which three dogs are white" Neither is there any structural parallelism in these two parses. Unless someone can show me how to translate 2). into pc, and show that it is equivalent to the pc version of 1), I am opposed to letting lo (everywhere)=da poi, and especially opposed to tweaking the grammar to make it work. The more the grammar becomes detached from predicate calculus, the more lojban will lose stability and usefulness as a language that can interface cultures and computers in the 21st century. djer