WikiDiscuss

pc:
> I am puzzled by xorxes use of {da poi} as an
> expansion of {lo}, since that position is one he
> has frequently rejected

Perhaps this will solve the puzzle:

PA sumti = PA da poi ke'a me sumti

Then:

PA lo broda = PA da poi ke'a me lo broda
= PA da poi ke'a broda

....
> The following things are
> incompatible, we are told:
> 1> in {PA lo broda}, PA counts broda
> 2> in {PA lo'i broda}, PA counts broda
> 3> lo'i broda = lo selcmi be lo broda
>
> xorxes' attempted solution is give up two, in
> favor of generalizing 1 to encompass the case of
> 3. Presumably, no one would give up 2.

No one else, you mean?

> But what
> about 3? A the heart of 3 is the question of
> just what {lo'i broda} means.

Yes.

....
> {lo broda} is an unspecified d-group of brodas,
> {loi broda} an unspecified c-group of brodas, and
> {lo'i} broda an unspecified set of brodas.
> Thus, equaton three does not hold.

OK. So in your system, {ko'a goi lo'i broda} assigns a different
referent to {ko'a} than {ko'a goi lo selcmi be lo broda}. In other
words, you would have {lo'i broda} be a set in a metalanguage sense,
not a set in the normal sense.

> So {PA l broda} always counts broda in a
> consistent way: the indicated constituents of the
> structure, to be sure, here referred to via yet
> another structure.

That's one way of defining things. It has its drawbacks though.
Suppose we use {cuxna be lo'i karda}, "chooses from a set of cards".
We now have that {lo'i karda} and {lo te cuxna} have different
referents. The second refers to sets, whereas the first would refer
to cards via a certain structure. So {mu lo te cuxna} are five sets
of cards (to choose cards from each), whereas {mu lo'i karda} would
be just one (sub)set of five cards.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail