Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

Well, no. {xxx}, like {zo'e}, picks something that go in a particular place in particular predicate, this time the salient possibility, not just one that makes the bridi true. The {poi} clause provides, as always, the relevant predicate place. The plan, of course, is not really to introduce a new term, but rectify the definition of {zo'e}.

The rest seem fairly wormrunnerish. What purpose do you have inm mind that requires a shift of quantifiers to prenex? Why can't They be pulled it of sumti tails (whatever they may be)? The underlying structure of {lo manta be re da} is lx2yMxy. Insofar as that is not reflected in Lojban-- which doesn't seem very far, Lojban has moved away from logic. Now, what theological situation is in terms of pulling that quantifier out of the tem and up to the propositional level needs to be worked out in the logic and might well also need some rules in the grammar, but that doesn't seem to be what you are about, since you stay at the level of terms but give ever farther from the simple form.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 10, 2014, at 16:33, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:40 AM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:
So, assuming that we have a new {zo'e} (here "xxx"), we could equate {lo broda cu brode} with {brode xxx poi broda}, where the {poi} makes puts the {xxx} in the right slot ({broda}, not {brode} -- or, at least, before {brode}).

So xxx would refer to everything in the universe of discourse, and "poi broda" is a restriction to just those things that satisfy "broda". Yes, that would work too. At the cost of introducing a new KOhA that refers to everything in the universe of discourse, of course.
E

This also has the advantage of getting away from making descriptions assertive, as {noi} seems to do. Of course, it leaves the question of why this equation is of interest. E redicate

The original reason for coming up with a paraphrase was probably essomething like this: "lo" they be pulled out oflogically needs as an argument a proposition ed out of sumti tails with (at least one) free variable, which is bound by "lo". But syntactically "lo" only has a sumti-tail as its dependent. and a sumti-tail is not flexible enough for many purposes. For example, to show the underlying logical structurex of "lo mamta be re da" it is useful to be able to export the quantifier to a prenex, which a sumti-tail does not provide. There are different workarounds to this limitation. One is to introduce the new cmavo "poi'i", which converts a bridi, with a marked free variable, into a selbri which is just what we need for a sumti-tail, now we can rewrite "lo mamta be re da" as "lo poi'i re da zo'u ke'a mamta da". "xxx poi" would also serve: "xxx poi re da zo'u ke'a mamta da", and "zo'e noi" also serves the same purpose. The main and probably only advantage of "zo'e noi" over the other two is that it doesn't use any unofficial cmavo.

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.

--
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.