"fa je X va Y" expresses both "fa je X ni Y" and "fa je X nu Y". In "la bcda fa je X va Y", bcd is predicated of that pair of propositions, specifying a relationship between them.
It's an important device for avoiding repetition, but it doesn't itself correspond to something in semantically-interpreted logical form.
As near as I can figure out, it stands for a vacuous repetition of X, which was thought to be needed somehow in reducing donkey sentences from sentences about farmers to sentences about classes of farmers (C-sets, apparently). I never did see its point there, nor its use elsewhere, but then -- aside from agreeing that this particular reduction and most other plurative cases are on the right course -- I haven't understood a lot of what arose from the donkey problem.
John E. Clifford, On 01/10/2012 19:37:
>
>
> I confess I haven't figured out f and v yet. I thought f functioned ore or less like Ljb nu, nut now I just don't know. V I haven't a clue that leads me anywhere, but there are threads I haven't gotten very far on as new ones keep coming along.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 12:10 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote:
>
>> John E Clifford, On 01/10/2012 17:00:
>> > What I missed in your display was what exactly was meant by a
>> > binder. You present it as an operator with two complements,
>>
>> Plus fV, with one complement, which can bind vV.
>>
>> > not noting what was required of these complements. That what is
>> > involved need not be a vowel is quite irrelevant to the issue that
>> > the term-dependence is indicated somehow. I'm sure it is in some
>> > definition of "binder" and "complement", but I haven't found that
>> > anywhere yet (I am also unclear about how it might be worded without
>> > a reference to variables of some sort, whether or not they are
>> > vowels).
>>
>> The semantic interpretation of Binder/Bindee relations varies according to the word-class. One sort is quantifier--variable binding. Another sort holds between fV and vV. I'm not sure about what sort is involved with gV (aka jekV).
>>
>> Some of these interpretation rules involve defining equivalences among logical forms (e.g. fV--vV binding), so I see them as being within the scope of the grammar, but I don't see them as being part of syntax, which is the combinatorics of the components of logical forms.
>>
>> --And.
>>
>
>
>