Posted by rlpowellon Mon 08 of Nov., 2004 23:24 GMT
posts: 14214

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:24:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:10:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> > > Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one.
> > > What's really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a
> > > very very bad decision and one that can be blamed on the
> > > Founders and nobody else (JCB got this one right).
> >
> > I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this
> > exchange to me in small words?
>
> John interpreted {da na botpi fo de} as:
>
> su'o da naku su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de
>
> "For some x, it is not the case that there
> is a y such that y is the lid of x."
>
> But CLL says it should be interpreted as:
>
> naku su'o da su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de
>
> "It is not the case that for some x there
> is some y such that y is the lid of x."
>
> The first one is clearly true, it's easy to find examples
> of things that don't have lids. The second one is clearly
> false, it's easy to find bottles that do have lids.

Hmm.

OK. So which one is derivable from {da botpi fi no de}?

I think only the first one, {da na ku botpi fi su'o de}, is, but I'm
not sure.

In which case, I think I mis-represented things to xod.

## Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:24:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: wrote:

>

> --- Robin Lee Powell

> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:10:46PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> > > Arrgh. You mean it's regrettable that I use the English one.

> > > What's really regrettable is that na goes before the selbri, a

> > > very very bad decision and one that can be blamed on the

> > > Founders and nobody else (JCB got this one right).

> >

> > I still don't get the na scope thing. Can someone explain this

> > exchange to me in small words?

>

> John interpreted {da na botpi fo de} as:

>

> su'o da naku su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de

>

> "For some x, it is not the case that there

> is a y such that y is the lid of x."

>

> But CLL says it should be interpreted as:

>

> naku su'o da su'o de zo'u da botpi fo de

>

> "It is not the case that for some x there

> is some y such that y is the lid of x."

>

> The first one is clearly true, it's easy to find examples

> of things that don't have lids. The second one is clearly

> false, it's easy to find bottles that do have lids.

Hmm.

OK. So which one is derivable from {da botpi fi no de}?

I think only the first one, {da na ku botpi fi su'o de}, is, but I'm

not sure.

In which case, I think I mis-represented things to xod.

-Robin

Reads: 918