[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la pycyn cusku di'e
Is {ro
broda cu du lo'e broda} true?
Yes. It can also be expressed as {ro broda cu kairdu'o
tu'o ka ce'u broda}, and {kairdu'o} is just {ckaji},
so {ro broda cu ckaji tu'o du'u ce'u broda}.
I am assuming that you mean by {ro broda cu ckaji} the Lojban form {ro da ganai da broda gi da ckaji} sothat the general claims hold even when there are no broda. But then you havebeen manipulating {lo broda} and {lo'e broda} like individual terms,
No! I never manipulated {lo broda} as an individual term!
{lo'e} broda I think can be manipulated as an individual
term, but the definition does not depend on that. The
definitions are just:
(1) buska lo broda = da poi broda zo'u sisku tu'o ka ce'u da
(2) buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka da poi broda zo'u ce'u da
(1) defines {buska} and (2) defines {lo'e}.
There is nothing in the least controversial about (1) as
far as I can tell. (I gave the full definition with all the
{ce'u}s in, but this expression here gives the gist of it.)
so --
continuing that -- {lo broda} can be substituted everywhere (outside
intensional contexts) for {lo'e broda} and conversely.
No. I don't know what else to say, but that is just wrong. It doesn't follow from anything I said.
If you want to deny
this now, then you ahve to unpack {lo broda} (fairly easy) and (lo'e broda}
(apparently very hard, since you have refused to do it for months)
The unpacking of {lo'e broda} is in (2) above. I can't unpack it
more than that. {lo broda} is just {su'o da poi broda}.
and show both that the substitutions sometimes fail and als that the earlier moves made treating them as individual terms also still go through.
Which move treats {lo broda} as an individual term? It seems
to me that only you have done those moves.
Actually, you can generally move the quantifier in, just not back out.
I meant that you can't move it in maintaining equivalence.
But more to the point << and from DEF2 we know that: buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda >> so, presumably, mi buska lo'e broda = mi sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda
Correct.
But by definition 1, for busku (using minimal application rules) that latteris just mi busku lo broda.
That's wrong. You are treating {lo broda} as an individual term.
The move treating {lo} as an individual term is
the same you used in your earlier derivations in the same message.
I have not used that move at all. If I did, it was incorrect. I don't need it in my derivations. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp