Re: [lojban] {le} in xorlo

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wait, I thought the definition of SE conversions was such that "re lo
> ci bakni ku pa pipno cu citka," "re lo ci bakni cu citka pa pipno,"

Those two are equivalent.

> "pa pipno cu se citka re lo ci bakni," "te citka pa pipno ku re lo ci
> bakni",

Those two are equivalent, but not equivalent to the first two.

>and so forth were all equivalent. But my Lojban's a bit rusty
> these days and my xorlo's never been entirely right; am I
> misremembering?

Nothing to do with xorlo. The order of quantifiers has always been
relevant. You can play around with SE and reorder the arguments all
you want *after* you have moved the quantifiers to the prenex, but you
can't change the order of quantifiers without affecting the meaning.

Saying that the number of cows that eat exactly one piano is exactly
two is very different from saying that the number of pianos that are
eaten by exactly two cows is exactly one.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.