Le samedi 11 avril 2015 23:07:16 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 1:25 AM, guskant
<gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
fa ko'a citka ko'e === fi'o citkrfa ko'a citka ko'e ......S1
ko'a citkrfa lo du'u ko'a citka ko'e ......S2
Then, a statement {fi'o citkrfa ko'a citka ko'e} does not necessarily signify the same proposition as {ko'a citka ko'e} in S2.
The former signifies a proposition that ko'a who eats ko'e is involved in a proposition that zo'e eats ko'e.
An interpretation of ko'a!=zo'e makes sense when a tapeworm eats things eaten by the host, for example.
OK, but how is the ka-version different, given that:
fi'o citkrfa ko'a citka ko'e = fi'o citkrfa ko'a fa zo'e citka ko'e
This ambiguity of interpretation comes from fixing the proposition in x2 of
{citkrfa}.
In order to make S1 always true, x2 of {citkrfa} should not be a proposition but an open sentence, which leaves one place be free for use in any other statement, and fixes referents of the other arguments to the same as the proposition intended.
I don't see how you insure that zo'e must take the value ko'a with the ka-version. Why can't one be the tapeworm and the other the host with the ka-version of citkrfa, given that both satisfy the same property?
It's because {ko'a} does not appear to replace {ce'u} besides the proposition in which {fi'o citkrfa ko'a} appears.
fi'o citkrfa be lo du'u ko'a citka ko'e kei ko'a zo'e citka ko'e ......S3
fi'o citkrfa be lo ka ce'u citka ko'e kei ko'a zo'e citka ko'e ......S4
S3 has two propositions {ko'a citka ko'e} and {zo'e citka ko'e}, then ko'a!=zo'e is possible.
S4 has only one proposition {zo'e citka ko'e}. In order to make {ko'a} satisfying {ce'u citka ko'e} be involved the proposition {zo'e citka ko'e} without any additional proposition, there is no choice other than ko'a=zo'e.
Then, when {fi'o citkrfa ko'a} appears in a statement, we can have a consistent interpretation that {ko'a} occupies the free place of the open sentence, and this occupation brings a proposition intended.
I think I must be missing something. It seems that "citkrfa" can't be an ordinary predicate that could be found in the dictionary, but one that changes its meaning depending on which sentence it is used in. Maybe "fa" could be something like "fi'o te bridi be lo ka ce'u nei", where "te bridi be lo ka ce'u nei" is a predicate that relates an argument x1 to the proposition about x1 that results from filling "lo ka ce'u nei" with x1. I don't think we escape the tapeworm situation with this either though. OTOH, "fa ko'a fa zo'e citka ko'e" also allows for the tapeworm situation, doesn't it?
Sure, and in S4, there is no proposition {ko'a citka ko'e}, while there is one in S3.
The reasonable English translation of definition of {brodrfV} that satisfies
x1 brodrfV lo ka fV ce'u broda <=> broda fV x1
would be:
x1 brings a proposition by satisfying a formula stated in {ka}-clause.
But that's de definition of "ckaji". Surely the definition of "citkrfa" has to say something about eating.
.ie
but I don't know how to express it in English in a form applicable to all cases of {brodrfV}.
mu'o