Subject: [lojban] So, what about le and da? (was Re: Re: What the heck is this crap?)

From: Robin Lee Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:27:31 -0800

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:32:29AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 09:34:42PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:41:01PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > ca ro djedi lo nanmu cu cinba la meris
> > > > > lo nanmu ca ro djedi cu cinba la meris
> > [...]
> > > > > ca le nu broda kei lo nanmu cu cinba la meris
> > > > > lo nanmu ca le nu broda kei cu cinba la meris
> > > > [...]
> > > > > And pretty much everyone on jboske seems to agree with it. I
> > > > > don't normally read jboske, myself; xod pointed this out to
> > > > > me.
> > > > 
> > > > Believe it or not, I agree with the jboskeists on this.
> > > 
> > > For *both* of them, or just tho one with ca ro?
> > 
> > When we say le broda, if we're only talking about only one broda
> > this quantifier stuff can be ignored (if the inner quantifier is pa,
> > the outer ro will mean 1). If talking about more however, the
> > meaning will change when you move quantifiers across it. AndR said
> > something to this effect in another branch of the thread.
> 
> I'm sorry, I simply have no interest in speaking that language, and do
> not intend to.
> 
> 'That language' being one in which I have to keep quantifier scope in
> mind when talking about *non-veridical* objects.

Ahem. I'm going to try to be a bit less confrontational.

I just had a conversation with xod in which we posited the following
sentences:

ca ci le djedi pa ko'a cinba pa ko'e
pa ko'a ca ci le djedi cu cinba pa ko'e
pa ko'a cinba pa ko'e ca ci le djedi

*And* the idea that le broda == su'o da voi broda.

And I walked through all the quantifier issues with him (because,
believe it or not, I do have formal logic training (and a B.Math), it's
just been a while since I've used it) and the sky didn't fall in or
anything. 8)

So.

It's quite derivable from the book that ro broda == ro lo broda == ro da
poi broda. Fine. Jordan demonstrated this on IRC, and I apologize for
being so confrontational about it. (For those observing, note in
particular C16, Ex 3.1-3.3).

Is it derivable from that book that le broda can be converted to
something involving da? If so, what is the exact form of that
conversion?

Thanks.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ http://www.lojban.org/
la lojban. jai curmi roda .einai to ku'i so'ada mukti le nu co'a
darlu le'o -- RLP I'm a *male* Robin.