[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
Well, everything has the property of being what it is, but the critters in question are lo broda and lo'e broda -- the things, not the expressions.
But those two expressions don't refer to two critters. They are two ways of talking about lo'i broda.
Thefirst of these has the property tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda, and the second tu'oka ce'u lo'e broda.
These are all true:
- ro broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda
- lo'e broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda
- ro broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda
- lo'e broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda
That doesn't mean that {lo'e broda} refers to some critter.
But since these properties are the same, the first, lo broda, has the property tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda. Therefore, lo broda du lo'e broda.
That's crazy. lo broda and ro broda have the property tu'o ce'u du lo broda, and that does not mean that lo broda cu du ro broda!
<< The two expressions are not identical. The underlying set is the same for both expressions. >> See immediately above. By the "underlying set" I suppose you mean lo'i broda. This is obvious, but beside the point.
It is the central point, I think.
<<
It leads to a false result only if you apply {lo'e broda} =
{lo broda}, which is false and not entailed by my definitions.
>>
Alas, it is entailed by your definitions and is false.
It is not entailed by my definitions.
And, if you don't
like the proof above, consider the next one: that {brode lo broda} is
materially equivalent to {brode lo'e broda},
No it is not. One can be true and the other false.
so that, even if {lo broda} werenot identical to {lo'e broda}, sentences involving {lo'e} -- in your sense -- would be redundant. Or the last proof, that your system makes {da poi broda zo'u mi sisku le ka ce'u du da} is materially equvalent to {mi sisku le ka dapoi broda zo'u ce'u du da},
My system makes them explicitly different. One is {mi buska lo broda}
and the other is {mi buska lo'e broda}.
which is demonstrably false in real cases.
Of course. The whole point of using {lo'e broda} is to separate
{brode lo broda} from {brode lo'e broda}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections�-- switch to�MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp