[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/21/2002 1:09:25 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes: << No! I never manipulated {lo broda} as an individual term! >> Of course neither of these is a definition actually given earlier, though both are mentioned as following from the earlier definitons (in rather different ways, which which seem to involve treating both {lo broda} and {lo'e broda} as individual terms, e.g. replacing lambda operators by them). << (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.) >> Well, as noted, they are not what you called definitions before, rather theorems from them. I think that 1 is relatively non-problematic given its derivation. I note, however, that the same starting point allows the equally unproblematic derivation of 2 along a different route. << 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. >> I agree that it ought not be the case, but where exactly do my proofs that it does follow fail? << 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. >> But in what context? The moves from your definitions 1 and 2 -- as originally given -- to the two claims that immediately followed it. Notice that the second of those claims, << buska lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda >> will not generally work with {lo broda} as accounted for in the expansion you now gie as a definition. << >But by definition 1, for busku (using minimal application rules) that >latter >is just mi busku lo broda. That's wrong. You are treating {lo broda} as an individual term. >> As you did to get the cited result before. << I have not used that move at all. If I did, it was incorrect. I don't need it in my derivations. >> As near as I can make out your derivation trying to be fair to you, it goes like this: busku lo'e broda = sisku tu'o ka ce'u broda (original) Def 2 = sisku tu'o ka da poi broda zo'u ce'u du da (a questionable move, though extensionally OK) = sisku tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda (ditto) In any case, at no point is it available to you to get to {da poi broda zo'u sisku tu'o ka ce'u du da}. So, if you did not treat {lo} as an individual term you made one and perhaps another of several questionable to clearly illegal moves. Sorry, it just doesn't work the way you think it should -- or the way I think it should as far as {lo'e} and {lo} go, though I don't agree with the other pieces (especially since they make for trouble). |