BPFK Section: Pro-bridi

Proposed Definitions And Examples

















What the second sentence in {mi prami do .i se go'i} mean? Do we even know? - rlpowell - May 2012 — Actually, standard use of {le se go'i} forces it to be just a repeat of the first sentence, so nevermind. - rlpowell

Can bu'a be "na klama"? That makes things pretty fucking weird; {ro bu'a ro da ro de zo'u da bu'a de .i jo nai da na bu'a de} is not actually true, because "da na klama de" and "da na na klama de" are both true. Do note, however, that {da ja'a bu'a de .i jo nai da na bu'a de} fixes it.

No, of course not. "na" is only syntactically part of the selbri; semantically it applies to the whole bridi. --jcowan

But what happens when bu'a == narbroda? --latros

narbroda is a positive selbri: it is true of exactly those tuples that broda is false of. But in any case, the original claim is bogus: "ro da ro de zo'u da na klama de" is true, because it means "naku ro da ro de zo'u da klama de" (it's true that it is not the case that for every x and every y, x goes to y") and "ro da ro de zo'u da na na klama de" is false, because it means "naku naku ro da ro de zo'u da klama de" which in turn means "ro da ro de klama de", and it is not true that every x goes to every y). So the claim of "pretty fucking weird" seems to me to be incorrect. Multiple consecutive {na} in the selbri cancels out; it's only when you say {na go'i} to a bridi containing {na} that the two are assimilated into just one. This is a magic property of go'V cmavo. --jcowan

There is an issue with bu'a, which also extends to selbri in general to a lesser extent. It is essentially not possible to treat selbri as sumti; that is, to consider a predicate as a predicate logic variable. This is especially relevant to bu'a, because we might want to assert the existence of a predicate which satisfies a certain predicate and is also the selbri of a bridi involving certain terbri. An example when this would be warranted is here(external link). The English sentence "For all stratified predicates P, the set {x : P(x)} exists" ostensibly cannot be translated in the same style; that is, it is apparently not possible to assert that a predicate satisfies a relation in the prenex and then use it as the selbri of a bridi. You can say {ro da poi ke'a selbri gi'e ... zo'u}, and you can say {ro bu'a zo'u}, but you cannot do something that does both things.

  • rlpowell's proposed solution appears to be to import {da poi ke'a selbri} from the prenex and then treat that as bu'a, leading to {ro da poi ke'a selbri gi'e multersenta zo'u lo'i bu'a cu zasti}. This seems a bit..."destructive", to me (mi'e latros), since now I am fairly sure that something is horribly wrong with {da bu'a}.
  • My proposed solution is to introduce sumti-to-predicate and predicate-to-sumti cmavo. It may sound like both of these exist, but I am fairly sure they do not. Using, say {me'au}, {me'au ko'a} would be "x1 ko'a x2 x3 ..." where ko'a is a predicate. Then using, say, {me'ei}, {me'ei broda} would be "broda-as-an-abstract-predicate". Then when quantifying over selbri in prenexes, you would use {ro me'ei bu'a}. The previous example then becomes: {ro me'ei bu'a poi ke'a multersenta zo'u lo'i bu'a cu zasti}. This removes the horrible selbri quantification hack, in that {ro bu'a zo'u} would be essentially no different from {ro da zo'u}, except that it would import {lo bu'a} instead of {da}. (It replaces it with another hack, but I would say this one is less bizarre.) In principle {me'ei broda} could be "x1 is broda-as-an-abstract-predicate", but I can't think of how this would ever be used beyond {lo me'ei broda}.

{bu'a} is treated weirdly: it's a selbri normally, but in the prenex it is effectively a sumti. The reason this works is that although {ro bu'a} is syntactically a quantifier+sumti-tail type of description, it is taken to mean "for all P". --jcowan



Created by rlpowell. Last Modification: Saturday 26 of July, 2014 19:03:32 GMT by Ilmen.