Subject: RE: partial-bridi anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] no'a

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:46:52

la and cusku di'e

>Also I partially retract my original objection, because I recently
>realized that I had been failing to think of restricted quantification
>as restricted. (I'd been thinking of {da poi broda} as {da noi
>broda}, i.e. as {da zo'u da broda}.) Realizing my error, I now think
>you're right to approve John's analysis.

Er, it's not John's analysis I'm approving. I'm saying that
{su'o da poi broda zo'u ... su'o da} means
{su'o da poi broda zo'u ... su'o de poi broda}.
I'm recycling the same variable to be used with the same
restriction but bound by a new quantifier.

John said it was {su'o da poi broda zo'u... da}. So the new
quantifier just vanishes. And if the new quantifier was anything
but {su'o}, I have no idea how to formulate it logically.

>What I was thinking was that:
>
> le broda goi ko'a
>
>= ro da po'u pa le broda ge'o goi ko'a zo'u
>
>i.e. assigns ko'a to each of le broda separately, so any single
>use of {ko'a} is a reference to just one of le broda, while
>
> le broda ku goi ko'a
>
>would assign ko'a to the whole group of le broda, so that a single
>use of ko'a would be equivalent to {ro le broda}.

I think you should need {ro ko'a} to get a new binding, exactly
parallel to the case of {da}.

> > An isomorphism is a one-to-one homomorphism.
>
>And what's a homomorphism, then?

A mapping F such that F(x*y) = F(x)*F(y). Mind you, it's been
years since I've seen any of this, so I might be forgetting
something.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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