Re: [lojban] cmevla as a class of brivla

[Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>]

On 9 June 2013 09:35, v4hn <me@v4hn.de> wrote:

coi rodo

> But the accepted definition of {la} is:
>
> la broda == lo selcme be zo broda

No, it is not. The last "accepted" "definition" of {la} is in xorlo which states

la [PA] broda - zo'e noi lu [PA] broda li'u cmene ke'a mi

I'm not sure that is the same thing. At least the full structure of the subsentence
includes {zo'e}s, so you can't get around them at all levels.

It isn't, but it's *very* close. Consider the definition of {lo}

lo [PA] broda -- zo'e noi ke'a broda [gi'e zilkancu li PA lo broda]

In the case where we can drop the quantifiers,

la broda -> zo'e noi ke'a se cmene lu broda li'u mi -> lo se cmene be lu broda li'u bei mi

which in the case of single-word names is pretty much redundant to {lo se cmene be zo broda bei mi}.

Finally, if we drop {mi} (as we frequently do), it becomes {lo selcme be zo broda}.

There is hardly any difference.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

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