[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] Llamban (was Re: Lo'e le'e


la pycyn cusku di'e


Llamban turns out to be a stranger language than I ever imagined.  It has
sumti that don't refer to anything, which is not unprecedented, since that is 
what I think {lo'e broda} is in Lojban.


So it should not be that surprising that I use {lo'e broda} when
I need a sumti that does not refer.


But these sumti can enter into
identity expressions and further give rise to properties which nothing has,
including the things mentioned in the properties.


I'm not sure which properties you're thinking of here.
{ro broda cu ckaji tu'o ka ce'u du lo'e broda} should
be true.


It appears that although
there is a property tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda, lo broda does not have it, that 
is, {lo broda du lo broda} is false --


I never said anything like that. ro broda have the property
tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda, so if there is any broda, some broda
indeed has it.


> - 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.
>>
No, but if it has any meaning at all, it means that for each broda, a, a du
lo broda and a du lo'e broda and thus lo broda du lo'e broda, whatever these 
may mean (since it is not clear what tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda is).


You're right, {lo broda cu du lo'e broda} is normally true. (When
there are broda.) What does not follow is that {lo'e broda} can
be substituted by {lo broda}.


<<
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!
>>
Well, actually it does -- and you said it does just above.


No. {ro broda cu du lo broda} is true, but {lo broda cu
du ro broda} is false unless there is only one broda.


Would you care to explain further (this seems to be my constant issue with
you -- your cryptic remarks never get developed and we are left to trust that 
they really do mean something.


I'm sorry if my remarks appear cryptic to you. It is not
intentional. Many of your remarks appear cryptic to me as well.


> 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 
>da
>poi 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}.
>>
Yes, precisely.  But those are already stated to be equivalent, since both
are equivalent to  {mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda}.


They are not. Only {mi buska lo'e broda} is equivalent to that.
{mi buska lo broda} is equivalent to {su'o da poi broda zo'u
mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda}, from the definition
of {buska}. You can't move the quantifier in.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp