* Wednesday, 2014-10-15 at 18:07 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > But the rule for logically connected sumti at top level is the same
> > rule as for logical connectives in various other places, e.g. bridi
> > tails, abstractions, tags, operators, operands. Roughly, that rule
> > is: you substitute in each of the connected possibilities, yielding
> > two propositions, then logically connect those propositions.
>
> Yes, but that rule doesn't automatically apply to all constructs. You
> can't for example apply it directly to "lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e cu
> brode". Therefore it is effectively a separate rule for each construct
> it applies to.
I don't see it that way at all. It's the same rule. It's just that the
rule is applying to the implicit sub-bridi of the description clause; in
general it applies to the immediately enclosing bridi (just like any
other bridi operator, e.g. tenses).
(I'm not particularly happy with this "bridi" and "sub-bridi"
terminology, btw, though I hope you can see what I mean by it; feel free
to suggest alternatives)
> > For sumti-tail there's an obvious choice: {lo [quantifier] [sumti]}
> > could be equivalent to {lo [quantifier] me [sumti]} for complex
> > sumti as well as for simple sumti.
>
> LE [quantifier] [sumti] is interesting. I think I never actually gave
> much thought to "lo re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku" having such a very
> unintuitive parse.
So it does... I guess to get the "lo (re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku)", you
have to use
lo tu'o boi re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku
?
> In any case, I wouldn't introduce an additional rule to interpret "lo ci
> ko'a .a ko'e":
>
> lo ci ko'a .a ko'e
> =lo poi'i ci mei gi'e me ko'a .a ko'e
> =lo poi'i ci mei gi'e ga me ko'a gi me ko'e
>
> I assume you are not interpreting it in that way, but rather as "lo ci ko'a
> ku .a lo ci ko'e"?
Yes, pretty much.
> For "me [sumti]", the predicate "menre" was proposed, such that "me
> [sumti]" = "menre (be) [sumti]". "me ko'a .e ko'e" doesn't require a new
> rule since:
>
> me ko'a .e ko'e
> = menre ko'a .e ko'e
> = ge menre ko'a gi menre ko'e
> = ge me ko'a gi me ko'e
Yes, good. Though as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, this doesn't
necessarily mean that the two rules are entirely equivalent - it depends
on what if any extra baggage comes with an implicit sub-bridi.
> I have no idea what the rules for mekso are in detail, so I don't know
> whether for example "li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" is supposed to be
> equivalent to "lo sinso be ko'a .e ko'e" or to "li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a
> lo'o .e li na'u sinso mo'e ko'e". I would like to say (not too adamantly)
> that it's the first, which doesn't require an additional rule for ".e", but
> you are probably interpreting as the second.
I am, which doesn't require an additional rule for ".e" ;)
But actually, I don't understand that example. What is the operand
{mo'e ko'a .e ko'e} such that sine of it is something which is sine of
both ko'a and ko'e?
> > > Do we even know what "na ku zo'u broda .i bo brode" means?
> > I believe it's the same as "na ku ge broda gi brode".
>
> I suppose that's one choice, although it's not a necessity that
> juxtaposition be equated with conjunction, or that the negation of two
> separate propositions has to be the negation of their conjunction.
Is there a plausible alternative?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature