WikiDiscuss

On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 04:43:23PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 03:27:27PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > > Well, an example would be something like:
> > >
> > > ci prenu noi melbi cu klama
> > > = ci da poi prenu zo'u da noi melbi cu klama
> > > = ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama
> >
> > What is this an example *of*, exactly?
>
> Of how to expand {PA broda noi brode cu brodi}.

OK.

> > Is this intended to be an example of your solution for noi?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by my solution. The example shows that
> {noi} cannot escape the scope of the quantifier when it is applied to
> a quantified term.

"solution" in the sense of "conversion formula that will work in as many
situations as humanly possible.

> > > lo'i broda ku'a lo'i brode vu'o noi se cmima ci da ...
> > >
> > > The intersection of the set of broda and the set of brode, which
> > > has 3 members,...
> >
> > Ah. What about:
> >
> > [sumti list] vu'o [relative] = da po'u [sumti list] [relative]
>
> That won't always work, especially if da is a singular variable.

Point.

> Besides, which sumti is the relative attached to on the right hand side?

Heh. That's probably fixable.

Got any ideas for how to make this work?

> > > There's certainly no binxo going on. If ko'a was my cat and I
> > > reassign the pronoun "ko'a" to something else my cat does not
> > > become that something else.
> >
> > Oh! Point.
> >
> > Does "poi binxo da poi sinxa [sumti 1]" work for you?
>
> No, there is nothing that becomes a cat here.

sinxa for a cat.

> {goi} is just not a type of {poi}.

• nod*

ko'a goi ko'e = le se sinxa be ko'e cu binxo le se sinxa be ko'a

?

-Robin