WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> 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

I see, it is the PA that merits a quantifier, not
the {lo}. I would get rid of the quantifiers for
quantifiers, but that is another issue.

>
> ...
> > 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?

Oops, I meant 1.
>
> > 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.

I don't get the difference you claim is involved.
A set of broda is an abstract structure which
has brodas as members. This is the normal sense,
so far as I can see, and is my sense. What is a
metalanguage set?

> > 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.

I don't follow this at all. Both of them, in the
instant case, can refer to the set of cards. {lo
te cuxna} need not, however (and in this case
probably does not, {le} being more appropriate).
{lo te cuxna} refers to (a group of)some number
things from which choices can be made, {lo'i
karda} refers to one such thing, an unspecified
set of cards.
>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.

Quite true, and thus, of course, {lo te cuxna}
does not mean {lo'i karda}, which is, as you say,
only pa lo te cuxna. Given that the choice is to
be made from lo'i karda, then one would hope that
{le te cuxna} would refer to that set as well
(or, rather, to the group of which that set is
the only component). But it is a different
description and, therefore, behaves differently
under various modifications. "One of the things
from which choices may be made" is not the same
as "one of the things which may be chosen."