Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:46:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712161746.MAA16680@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: la'e X-To: Logical Language Group X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1428 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Dec 16 12:46:59 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > >The meaning of xukau varies according to which selbri the abstraction > >containing xukau is a sumti of. So while I might accept that > >{xukau} makes sense in the false bridi {djuno le se du`u xu kau > >ko`a badri}, because we do know what {xukau} means in {djuno le se > >du`u xu kau ko`a badri}, it does not follow that we know what > >{xukau} means in {cusku le se du`u xu kau ko`a badri}, for > >we do not know what {xukau} means in the false bridi {cusku le du`u > >xu kau ko`a badri}. > > I totally miss what you are saying here (and just trying to figure out the > parallel and contrast between the examples was difficult enough). All I wish tsay is that definitionally: I won't reexplain. Instead I'll hope to get my poiunt across by replying to what you say: > ledu'u xukau ko'a badri cu du'u lesedu'u xukau ko'a badri > by the definition of descrriptors and se. No. A du`u is a proposition: something that is true or false. {xukau ko'a badri} is not true or false. In itself it does not express a bridi. > (perhaps there is a quantification > scope thing here though, and you need to move the xukau out to the prenex?) Sort of. The problem is that it's more than a matter of quantification scope; and translating sentences with Q-kau into predicate logic is more complicated than just moving the Q-kau out to a prenex. And crucially, there is no automatic way of translating Q-kau into logical form. --And