WikiDiscuss

> ! Formal Definitions
>
> (AKA conversion formulas)
>
> || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu brode .i je ko'a
> cu brodi

You have brode and brodi interchanged. The order matters, because the brodi
sentence is used to define the referents of ko'a and the brode sentence
is the one claimed of those referents, not the other way around. It may
very well be true that the number of brodas that brode is more than PA.

Also, I insist the formula is not valid for all PA. In particular, it
is not valid for {no}, but also it is inaccurate for {su'ePA} quantifiers,
because it turns them into {su'ePA .e su'o}.

I think that no conversion formula is better than one that is not quite
right.

> poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga nai brode gi
> brodi

This one is wrong. The expression on the right claims that everything
is a broda, which the one on the left clearly does not.

> poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA da broda .i je
> da ge brode gi brodi

The one on the right claims that there are PA things that broda, the one
on the right does not.

{PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as:

PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode

More generally, for any sumti:

[PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me sumti gi'e
broda

> zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi [[sumti]]
> [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]

This one is wrong, just try some example:

da poi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi
=/= da poi broda cu brodi ije da poi brode cu brodi

> goi, left or both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'e co'a sinxa ko'a

For both unassigned, that's not meaningful. You could have instead
something like:

zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a kansa lo ka ce'u sinxa
"ko'a" and "ko'e" from now on co-refer.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail