Cowan withdraws magic "lo" proposal (was: Cowan's summary #2)

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

mi pu cusku di'e

> > Providing this feature is not strictly necessary, but may make the use of
> > negation somewhat simpler,
> > because it means that both "lo" and "le" commute
> > with negation, i.e. are in effect singular terms.
>
> {le} doesn't in general commute with negation, only in the case where
> the inner quantifier is {pa}. This is the most common case though, so
> it is fair to say that it commutes. {lei} always commutes (I assume
> that its quantifier is {piro} rather than {pisu'o}, more on this in
> another post).

Your comment on "le su'ore broda" is absolutely well-taken, as I see after
a bit of reflection.  Okay, "le" doesn't commute with negation either.

> > Comment on this proposal?
>
> I'm strongly against. It is complicated and I think would cause more
> trouble than anything else.

On reflection, I think you are right.  I withdraw it.  From now on,
"lo broda" will mean "da poi broda", modulo the case of an inside
quantifier, which is just a declaration of set cardinality.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.