Re: [jboske] lo'e, le'e

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

I present here my definition of {lo'e} (nothing new, but
maybe better formulated). I don't think it is incompatible
with And's, though the approach is different. I define
it for a very specific case in a specific context, and then
I generalize it.

We start from the official definition of {sisku}:

sisku: x1 seeks/searches/looks for property x2 among set x3

We define a new predicate, {buska}, as follows:

DEF1:
tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e ce'u goi ko'i zo'u
ko'a buska ko'e ko'i
cu du tu'o ka ce'u goi ko'a ce'u goi ko'e ce'u goi ko'i zo'u
ko'a sisku tu'o ka ce'u du ko'e kei ko'i

Now we define a particular use of {lo'e broda} as follows:

DEF2:
buska lo'e broda
= sisku tu'o ka ce'u broda

Notice that from DEF1 we know that:
buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda

and from DEF2 we know that:
buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda

So we have that:

tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda
= tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda

which does not in any way entail that {lo'e broda} can
be replaced by {lo broda} in other contexts.

In particular, we have:

buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka da poi broda zo'u ce'u du da

buska lo broda = da poi broda zo'u sisku tu'o ka ce'u du da

which are clearly different.

So we have defined {lo'e broda} when it appears in the x2 of
{buska}. To generalize for any context {brode lo'e broda}, we
need a predicate that is to {brode} as {sisku} is to {buska}.
This protopredicate is simply {kairbrode}. It takes a property
in x2 instead of the x2 of brode.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!? Try MSN. 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp