WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

posts: 14214

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 06:53:24PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> > ! Formal Definitions
> >
> > (AKA conversion formulas)
> >
> > || noi | PA broda noi brode cu brodi | PA broda goi ko'a cu
> > brode .i je ko'a cu brodi
>
> You have brode and brodi interchanged. The order matters, because
> the brodi sentence is used to define the referents of ko'a and the
> brode sentence is the one claimed of those referents, not the
> other way around.

I don't see how it is *possible* for order to matter around an
{i je}, aside from scoping issues. It's a symmetrical relationship;
both haves are equally binding.

> Also, I insist the formula is not valid for all PA. In particular,
> it is not valid for {no},

Adding a case for {no} doesn't bother me.

> but also it is inaccurate for {su'ePA} quantifiers, because it
> turns them into {su'ePA .e su'o}.

I don't follow that at all.

> I think that no conversion formula is better than one that is not
> quite right.

Ummm, you've already admitted that your own conversion formulae do
not apply in all cases.

> > poi + ro | ro broda poi brode cu brodi | ro da broda .i je da ga
> > nai brode gi brodi
>
> This one is wrong. The expression on the right claims that
> everything is a broda, which the one on the left clearly does not.

Whoops. Would swapping the sentences fix that?

> > poi + PA (but not ro or no) | PA broda poi brode cu brodi | PA
> > da broda .i je da ge brode gi brodi
>
> The one on the right claims that there are PA things that broda,
> the one on the right does not.

Which of those "rights" was supposed to be a left?

> {PA broda poi} could be defined accurately as:
>
> PA broda poi brode | PA ckaji be lo ka ce'u broda gi'e brode
>
> More generally, for any sumti:
>
> [PA] sumti poi broda | [PA] lo ckaji be lo ka ce'u me
> sumti gi'e broda

Can that trick be made to work for ro? Seems like it cood.

> > zi'e | [sumti] [relative] zi'e [relative] [rest] | ko'a goi [[sumti]]
> > [relative] [rest] .i je ko'a [relative] [rest]
>
> This one is wrong, just try some example:
>
> da poi broda zi'e poi brode cu brodi
>
> =/= da poi broda cu brodi ije da poi brode cu brodi

Why? {i je} is symmetrical; both halves must be equally binding on
{da}, else what's the point?

> > goi, left or both unassigned | ko'a goi ko'e | zo ko'e co'a
> > sinxa ko'a
>
> For both unassigned, that's not meaningful. You could have instead
> something like:
>
> zo ko'a zo ko'e co'a kansa lo ka ce'u sinxa
> "ko'a" and "ko'e" from now on co-refer.

Sneaky. Thanks.

-Robin