[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> For example, lu'i would be defined as something > like: > > lu'i Qx = da poi ge Qx cmima ke'a > gi no de poi na du x cu cmima ke'a The second x is unbound.
You're right, that's why I didn't want to use a lojban variable,
I meant it to be just a word replacement. Let's see:
lu'i Q de poi broda = da poi ge Q de poi broda cu cmima ke'a
gi no de poi na du su'o di poi broda cu cmima ke'a
Or more succintly:
lu'i Q broda = da poi ge Q broda cu cmima ke'a
gi no de poi na broda cu cmima ke'a
> and the same formula would apply without the quantifier In which case, we are also disagreeing about the meaning of Fx, since F is not being treated as a function.
It reduces to a function when the quantifier is outside. In that
case we have:
lu'i ko'a = le pa da poi ge ko'a cu cmima ke'a
gi no de poi na du ko'a cu cmima ke'a
> I'm not sure I see the point of having LAhE at all if they > are transparent When you have true functions, treating them as predicates involves redundant quantification (or some other redundant sort of gadri use). Transparent LAhE avoid this redundancy.
Yes, but at too high a cost.
If I understand correctly, you would have {lu'i ko'a},
{lu'o ko'a} and {lu'a ko'a} make sense only in the case
where {ko'a} is a set. So for example:
lu'i lo'i broda = lo'i broda
lu'i le'i broda = le'i broda
lu'i ro se cmima = ro se cmima
lu'i loi se cmima =? loi se cmima
lu'i ro mlatu = nonsense
lu'i su'o mlatu = nonsense
Is that correct?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail