RE: partial-bridi anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] no'a

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

la and cusku di'e

> Also I partially retract my original objection, because I recently
> realized that I had been failing to think of restricted quantification
> as restricted. (I'd been thinking of {da poi broda} as {da noi
> broda}, i.e. as {da zo'u da broda}.) Realizing my error, I now think
> you're right to approve John's analysis.

Er, it's not John's analysis I'm approving. I'm saying that
{su'o da poi broda zo'u ... su'o da} means
{su'o da poi broda zo'u ... su'o de poi broda}.
I'm recycling the same variable to be used with the same
restriction but bound by a new quantifier.

John said it was {su'o da poi broda zo'u... da}. So the new
quantifier just vanishes. And if the new quantifier was anything
but {su'o}, I have no idea how to formulate it logically.

> What I was thinking was that:
>
>    le broda goi ko'a
>
> =  ro da po'u pa le broda ge'o goi ko'a zo'u
>
> i.e. assigns ko'a to each of le broda separately, so any single
> use of {ko'a} is a reference to just one of le broda, while
>
>    le broda ku goi ko'a
>
> would assign ko'a to the whole group of le broda, so that a single
> use of ko'a would be equivalent to {ro le broda}.

I think you should need {ro ko'a} to get a new binding, exactly
parallel to the case of {da}.


> > An isomorphism is a one-to-one homomorphism.
>
> And what's a homomorphism, then?

A mapping F such that F(x*y) = F(x)*F(y). Mind you, it's been
years since I've seen any of this, so I might be forgetting
something.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp