Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sTDiv-0000Z8C; Tue, 4 Jul 95 22:33 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 3F32C0D7 ; Tue, 4 Jul 1995 21:33:20 +0200 Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 15:30:08 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: lo & da poi X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1209 Lines: 30 la djer cusku di'e > The discussion about "lo" and "da poi" meaning the same thing goes on and > I want to reformulate some statements I gave last fall saying that "lo" > and "da poi" are not equivalent. > > I define that when two terms are syntactically equivalent they can be > substituted for one another in any valid grammatical structure, without > changing the truth value. Semantic equivalence means two distinct terms > refer to the same thing. With that definition of equivalence they indeed are not equivalent. Under some substitutions you can even get ungrammatical stuff. Nobody has claimed that you can do that. > I want to show what happens when "da poi is substituted for "lo" in some > sentences: > > (1). ko'a cu pencu ci {lo} ro gerku > (1'.) ko'a cu pencu ci {da poi} ro gerku (1') is ungrammatical. The right substitution would be {ci da poi ke'a gerku}. You can't express the inner quantifier directly in {da}-notation. {ko'a pencu ci da poi gerku} does assert that ko'a touches each of three dogs, that's in perfect agreement with logic. If you want to find a difference it will have to be in the {lo}-version. I think everyone agrees on the meaning of the {da}-version. Jorge