On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:45 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
However, under the conditions that:- {lo broda} is defined as a plural constant, and- a logical axiom for a plural constant C is given asF(C) {inaja} there is X such that F(X),{lo no broda} is now excluded from the language.
Yes, in the same sense that "lo ni'u pa broda" is exluded. They are grammatical expressions but not with any standard meaning.In order to take it back and to give a reasonable meaning for it, we need an additional definition applied only to {lo no broda}.How do you think the following suggestion?{lo no broda} =ca'e {naku lo broda}only for the case that PA=no.I think that's how it will be usually understood, yes. I wouldn't make it an official definition though, just because it's unnecessary and breaks the simplicity of other rules (such as "lo PA broda" being a referring _expression_).
{naku lo broda} should be actually {naku lo su'oi broda} with a plural quantifier {su'oi} that you once proposed, but it is not necessary to mention it in the definition if the innner quantifiers are in general an implicit _expression_ of plural quantifiers.Actually, it should be just "naku lo [su'o] broda", with a generic "lo [su'o] broda", or "naku su'oi lo broda". The so called "inner quantifiers" are not actually true quantifiers but just cardinalities, and only natural numbers or things like "su'o", "za'u", "so'i" etc that can stand for natural numbers really make sense there. I wouldn't know what to make of "lo su'oi broda".Those problems are caused by the English language, and then I would better abandon using "something".I would suggest instead:{lo broda} =ca'e "what is/are broda"With this definition, it seems that the problems you remarked on will be avoided.OK. I don't vouch for the idiomaticity of the results if you use that for direct translations though.