Actually, because xorlo has no default quantifiers I think all three are incorrect as "equivalences". I think several of them are possible understandings of the original sentence, but not equivalent. As far as I understand it...
{ro da brode zo'e noi broda da de}.
If I'm remembering correctly, {lo broda} can, in general, be replaced by {zo'e noi broda} it is truly that unspecific.
On Sep 6, 2011 8:14 AM, "Ian Johnson" <
blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you sure (iii) is even what you wanted? {di} seems to have come in from
> nowhere, among other problems.
>
> Anyway, I don't actually know, but I also don't actually see how (i) and
> (ii) are semantically different, because I don't know how multiple {zo'u}
> work semantically.
>
> mu'o mi'e latros
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Martin Bays <
mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
>> {ro da zo'u da brode lo broda be da bei de}
>>
>> should be equivalent (under xorlo) to one of
>>
>> (i) {ro da su'o de zo'u da brode zo'e noi broda da de}
>> (ii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de zo'u broda da de}
>> (iii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de su'o di broda de di}.
>>
>> Which?
>>
>> I think (ii) is the best choice, on the bases of naturality and
>> usefulness.
>>
>> (i) is what you'd get if you took exportation to the prenex as a golden
>> rule, and (iii) is what you'd get if you considered it all-important
>> that {lo} give a constant.
>>
>> (ii) makes its own sense - it's what you get if you consider tanru
>> units, linkargs included, to correspond directly to relative clauses.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
> --
> 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.
>