Okay, I'm starting to see a point (maybe not the point) to this. Since Lojban uses static grammars it cannot draw transformational generalizations from cases, but rather has to make each case separately and claim and argue for equivalence some other way. Given the a reasonable case that {xxx poi [ke'a] broda ko'a} is equivalent to {lo broda be ko'a} it needs a device to make a similar claim for {xxx poi ko'a broda ke'a}, when {lo poi'i ko'a broda ke'a}, with a new, transparent, type of bridi based predicate. The direct analogy, {lo be ko'a broda ke'a}, which equally clear, is excluded by the static grammar, although it has the appropriate logical form. Obviously, given my druthers, I would allow this form as logically (and grammatically, too) simpler, but I am not at all sure of the ramifications for the static grammar. (It is interesting to see some further uses for those obnoxious {be}s though.) But there is a danger in thinking that the English form is going to guide us aright. "What I want for Christmas" as "What I have in my hand" or even "What I know" and so {xxx poi mi djica tu'a ke'a} and so {lo poi'i mi djica tu'a ke'a} or {lo be mi djica tu'a ke'a}, however normally formed they might turn out to be, are probably not the right logical form (though I haven't a very good idea what is), it's the old problem of nonexistents again (there aren't any pink unicorns). But those are going to be problems all the way up to the logic level. Sent from my iPad -- 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. |