Re: [lojban] Re: I saw three kinds of dogs

[Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>]

On Tuesday 03 June 2003 19:09, oskar2379 wrote:
> --- In lojban@yahoogroups.com, Pierre Abbat <phma@w...> wrote:
> > How do you say that in colloquial Lojban? {ci da zo'u mi viska lo
>
> gerku be da}
>
> > is formal, and {mi viska lo gerku be ci da} is wrong because a dog
>
> doesn't
>
> > belong to three breeds at once.
>
> How could the first be right and the second not? They both mean "I
> see dogs of three breeds". The book made it seem like prenexes only
> exist to allow you to declare variables in the beginning and use them
> multiple times and/or in a different order in the main bridi. It
> never said anything the entire meaning changing when the prenex is
> dropped...

{ci da zo'u mi viska lo gerku be da} is equivalent to {ci da su'o de poi gerku 
da zo'u mi visku de} "There are three breeds such that there is at least one 
dog of that breed which I see", while {mi viska lo gerku be ci da} is 
equivalent to {su'o de ci da poi selge'u de zo'u mi viska de} "There is at 
least one thing such that it is a dog of three breeds which I see". An absent 
prenex is equivalent to a prenex with all variables in the same order as in 
the bridi.

phma
-- 
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.