Well, aside from doubting anything at all that involves {zo'e}, you are forgetting ivity and modality here. I don't know what modality is intended, but if generality, then, even if the first sentence were true, the last is not. And the intermediate ones are hard to handle. But assuming simple factuality, and conjunctive predication and a continuous sense of {zo'e} (which hard to guarantee, of course, given some of its meanings). You start with a bunch of red roses and you end with the same, though some of the pragmatics will have changed a bit. But then, I think that if a definition of {lo} in terms of {zo'e} works at all (which I doubt), it has to use {poi} rather than {noi}. And then the transformation are less plausible.
From: Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 5:41:22 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
What's wrong with that? The rose is a red thing. The red thing is a rose. I don't see what the problem is
On Oct 16, 2011 6:23 PM, "Martin Bays" <
mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
* Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 19:22 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> So am I taking "{lo} -> {zo'e noi}" too literally?
Actually, what do you make of this argument for not taking it too
literally:
{lo rozgu cu xunre}
== {zo'e noi rozgu cu xunre}
== {zo'e rozgu gi'e xunre}
== {zo'e xunre gi'e rozgu}
== {zo'e noi xunre cu rozgu}
== {lo xunre cu rozgu}
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.