Re: [bpfk] Re: FA as a TAG (Was: One cannot refer to inner nodes in Lojban PEG)

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:02 PM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:

Le mercredi 8 avril 2015 06:52:23 UTC+9, Jacob Errington a écrit :

.i ko'a brodrfV lo du'u broda <=> broda fV ko'a

The definition should be then :

.i ko'a brodrfV lo ka fV ce'u broda <=> broda fV ko'a

I don't know. Is it different from "ckaji"? 

.i ca'e ko'e du lo ka ce'u citka lo cakla kei lo ka lo cakla cu se citka ce'u

.i ca'e ko'a citka lo cakla

.i xu ko'a brodrfa ko'e .i xu ko'a brodrfe ko'e .i xu ko'a brodrfi ko'e

The problem is that FA doesn't deal with propositions or with properties. A proposition is independent of the text used to express it. A property also is independent of the text used to express it. Different texts can be used to express the same proposition, or the same property. 

We can't have predicates that relate a proposition or a property to its "fa-argument", its "fe-argument", and so on, because propositions/properties don't have such things. It is only some of the texts used to express the propositions/properties that can may consist of a predicate with fa-/fe-/fi-arguments, but not the du'u/ka themselves.

We could have "ko'a brodrfa lu lo nixli cu citka lo cakla li'u" meaning that "ko'a du lo nixli", (via "ko'a du la'e lo'u lo nixli le'u") but I don't think it really makes sense with du'u or ka.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.