Re: Variables and connectives.

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx]

>From: mark@kli.org
>
> >{mi do mintu le ka makau cmene ke'a}.
>
>(maybe {ce'u} instead of {ke'a}? Not sure of the difference.

Yes, I meant {ce'u}. I used to use {ke'a} before {ce'u} was
invented. They serve basically the same function, one for
relative clauses and the other for properties.

> >Correct. But, {mi e do se cmene da} means something
> >different! It expands as {mi se cmene da ije do se
> >cmene de}.
>
>Whoa, you blew past me there. Why does the implicit prenex work
>differently here? Oh, this is along the lines of moving the variable 
>across negation borders, and having to apply stuff like deMorgan's law?

Yes, though there are no negations in this case. The order
of universal and existential quantifiers is significant.
The conjunction is like a universal quantifier, and the
disjunction is like an existential for this purpose,
so in this example we have a universal (with .e) and an
existential quantifier (with da), and the order in which
they appear is significant.

>Since the variable occurs after the {mi e do}, to move it into the prenex 
>it splits somehow? I'm still pretty confused, but I'm not disagreeing.

I'm not sure this has been explicitly stated in the book,
but I don't see how it could work any other way.

co'o mi'e xorxes