From jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx Wed Aug 25 08:56:27 1999
X-Digest-Num: 221
Message-ID: <44114.221.1204.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:56:27 PDT
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@xxxxxxx.xxxx
Subject: Re: Anselmisms and gadro


la mark cusku di'e

>The thing to remember about all this is that {lo broda} is the same,
>semantically, as {da poi [ke'a] broda}, with the exception that the latter 
>also asserts the existence of such a thing, while the
>former doesn't.

I disagree about the exception. They are the same in all respects.
A sumti by itself doesn't assert the existence of anything.
If you say either {lo broda cu brode} or {da poi broda cu brode}
then you need for at least one thing to be a broda in order for
both assertions to be true. And that the thing also be a brode,
of course.

>({le broda} is correspondingly {da voi broda}).

I think that's not right. {le broda} is each of the broda
I have in mind, {da voi broda} is some thing that I am
describing as a broda. The quatifier is crucially different.
{le broda} is {roda voi broda}. Usually we have only one
thing in mind when using {le}, in which case the difference
disappears, but not in the general case.

>Similarly, "the x such that
>Fyx" is {da poi de se broda da[/ke'a]} in {da poi} syntax,

That's "some x such that ..." not "the x such that...", which
is what pc wanted.

co'o mi'e xorxes