Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 16:05:16 -0500 (EST)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: query about gihe, & correction of pemci
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HKUB1T80C2000CYR@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 972
Lines: 25

la djan di'e la and spusku

> > Is it better to say:
> >    Do mi zmadu lo ni/ka nelci gihe se mamta vau zohe
>
> No, I think not.  In either case you get "you are more than me in the
> property of liking (someone) and of having a mother".  There is no connection
> between the "se nelci" and the "mamta", and the "zo'e" doesn't help, because
> "zo'e" doesn't preserve identity through splitting up of logical connectives;
> it can mean different things in different branches of the logical connection.
>
> Using "da", with or without a lambda indicator, would have the right effect.

Would it? If da is not in the prenex, then I thought you agreed that the
scope of its existential quantifier comes after the scope of "gi'e" in this
case. It would expand to {nelci da ije se mamta de}.

On the other hand, {le ka zo'e da nelci gi'e se mamta} would have the right
effect.

Still, a lambda variable (say, ke'a) would be even better: {le ka ke'a nelci
le ke'a mamta}

Jorge