Re: la'e

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

> >The meaning of xukau varies according to which selbri the abstraction
> >containing xukau is a sumti of. So while I might accept that
> >{xukau} makes sense in the false bridi {djuno le se du`u xu kau
> >ko`a badri}, because we do know what {xukau} means in {djuno le se
> >du`u xu kau ko`a badri}, it does not follow that we know what
> >{xukau} means in {cusku le se du`u xu kau ko`a badri}, for
> >we do not know what {xukau} means in the false bridi {cusku le du`u
> >xu kau ko`a badri}.
>
> I totally miss what you are saying here (and just trying to figure out the
> parallel and contrast between the examples was difficult enough).  All I wish
 tsay is that definitionally:

I won't reexplain. Instead I'll hope to get my poiunt across by
replying to what you say:

> ledu'u xukau ko'a badri cu du'u lesedu'u xukau ko'a badri
> by the definition of descrriptors and se.

No. A du`u is a proposition: something that is true or false.
{xukau ko'a badri} is not true or false. In itself it does
not express a bridi.

> (perhaps there is a quantification
> scope thing here though, and you need to move the xukau out to the prenex?)

Sort of. The problem is that it's more than a matter of
quantification scope; and translating sentences with Q-kau into
predicate logic is more complicated than just moving the Q-kau
out to a prenex. And crucially, there is no automatic way
of translating Q-kau into logical form.

--And