OK, put ti that way. Then {xxx poi broda} selects from the salient features of the situation the ones that broda, though I do thnk that is backwards of what really goes on and that the process is closer to that for {da poi broda}, taking the brodas and looking for the salient one. the contrast with {noi} applies in any case.
The syntax of Lojban doesn't
allow any transformation, since it is entirely static (whether PEG or YACC). So I suppose that you mean that {re da lo mamta be da} is not a term in Lojban. Nor should it be, since "2y lxMxy" is not a term in logic. But why would you want it to be? The answer is that you don't, as your further steps show. You just want "lx2yMxy" which you have already in {lo mamta be re da} by perfectly general rules already in place (quantifiers go to shortest scope with copy variable in original place, descriptor goes to descriptor +var with a copy variable in first place of predicate). The rules get complicated later, but not here. So, until I see some markedly more complicated cases, I don't see wtf you are all about. The whole point of much of the deviation of Lojban from logical notation is to make an ergonomic (yuck, ptui!) language while keeping a connection to the logic. Why deliberately go after
the antiergonomic "standard form" when you have a good representation already, There are problems with Lojban's representations of standard form, but the solution is to find better ergonomic treatments, not to give up and go back to the unusable originals.
"l" is not a quantifier but an operator for converting an open formula into a term and Lojban has at least one of those, namely {lo}, which "l" represents. This is basic logic stuff; where is the problem?
On Friday, October 10, 2014 7:09 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote: