Re: Analogy

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la djan cusku di'e

> 1)      ro da poi broda cu brode
> 2)      ro da poi broda zo'u da brode
> 3)      ro broda cu brode
>
> are strictly equivalent in meaning, and imply nothing about the existence
> of widgets.

I agree that those are equivalent. I don't see any difference between
{lo broda} and {da poi broda} either, and they can be shown to be
equivalent using the equivalence of (1) and (3):


        lo broda cu brode
        <==> naku naku lo broda cu brode
        <==> naku ro broda naku cu brode
        <==> naku ro da poi broda naku cu brode
        <==> naku naku da poi broda cu brode
        <==> da poi broda cu brode

If there is no broda that is in relationship brode, then the claim
should be false, whether it is made using {lo broda} or {da poi broda}.
And the absence of a {lo broda} may or may not be because it is an
empty class. Why are they supposedly different?

Jorge