Subject: RE: [lojban] no'a

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:56:28

la and cusku di'e

> > 1- la djan ba klama lo zarci pu le nu la meris no'a
> >
> > A) John will go to some store before Mary goes to it.
> > B) John will go to some store before Mary goes to one.
>
>C) John will go to some store before Mary is x1 of the next
> outer bridi.

Whatever does that mean? Could you give an example of a sentence
with no'a that makes sense? The next outer bridi is {la djan ba
klama lo zarci}, isn't it?

>But let's change the examples to:
>
>1- la djan ba klama lo zarci pu le nu la meris go'i
> >
> > A) John will go to some store before Mary goes to it.
> > B) John will go to some store before Mary goes to one.

Sometimes I'm tempted to use go'i like that, but I think go'i
can't be the bridi it is embedded in.

>My answer is this: if, as in predicate logic, each quantifier
>begins a new bridi, then by go'i-ing to the appropriate
>bridi (outer, including the quantifier, or inner, not including
>the quantifier), you could get both A and B readings, at least
>for 1 & 2.

What would be the bridi(s) in 1 if we followed predicate logic?
I usually take bridi to be the things separated by .i plus
anything within a NU. Can they be something else?

>If only Loglan had remained true to its logical origins. Then
>these sorts of issues would not arise, and we'd have decent
>ways of saying all of the A & B sentences.

Was Loglan really ever logically true enough for that?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp