Jump to: navigation, search


7 bytes added, 5 months ago
no edit summary
I present here my definition of [[lo'ei]] (nothing new, but maybe better formulated). I don't think it is incompatible with And's, though the approach is different. I define it for a very specific case in a specific context, and then I generalize it.
We start from the official definition of '''sisku''':{{mu|sisku|x1 seeks/searches/looks for property x2 among set x3}}:
sisku: x1 seeks/searches/looks for property x2 among set x3 We define a new predicate, {'''buska}''', as follows:
ko'a sisku tu'o ka ce'u du ko'e kei ko'i
Now we define a particular use of {'''lo'ei broda} ''' as follows:
buska [[lo'ei|lo'ei]] broda  = sisku tu'o ka ce'u broda
Notice that from DEF1 we know that:
So we have that:
tu'o ka ce'u du [[lo'ei|lo'ei]] broda  = tu'o ka ce'u du lo broda
which does not in any way entail that '''[[lo'ei]] broda''' can be replaced by '''lo broda''' in other contexts.
Forum:Admin, Forum:CantDelete, Forum:CantEdit, Forum:CantPost, Forum:CantSearch, Forum:CantView, Forum:Mod, Forum:NoSigs, Translators, Users, Bureaucrats, forumadmin, staff, Administrators, translate-proofr, twitter, uploader, Widget editors

Navigation menu