Re: [lojban] Re: {da poi} (was: Re: tersmu 0.2

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

So am I interpreting you correctly as suggesting that when we have
a claim involving an unbound variable, e.g. that generated by {da poi
broda zi'e noi brode}, we should deal with the unbound variable not by
universally quantifying over brodaers but rather by replacing the
variable with a constant whose referents are the brodaers?

I'm not adamant, but yes, I think it would have to be equivalent to:

   da poi broda zi'e goi ko'a noi brode 

If so, how about something like
    {su'oi tadni poi sruri su'o dinju zi'e noi darlu simxu}
, in a context where there are many buildings being surrounded by
various (possibly intersecting) groups of students?

Would you have the side-claim being that all the students involved in
surrounding any building argue, or only that each group of students
which surrounds a building argues? The latter seems more natural to me.

I think the most natural is for the side-claim in:

   su'oi tadni poi sruri su'o dinju zi'e noi darlu simxu cu cladu

to be:

  lo su'oi tadni poi sruri su'o dinju gi'e cladu cu darlu simxu

but the problem with that is that it only works with some quantifiers. It won't work with "no", for example.

What value does "ko'a" get in "su'oi tadni poi sruri su'o dinju zi'e goi ko'a"? Or for that matter in "su'oi tadni goi ko'a", or in "no tadni goi ko'a"? I think that's the value that the noi-clause should be about.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.