Jump to: navigation, search


2 bytes removed, 2 months ago
no edit summary
This latter usage is equally legitimate (I think) but only sorta consistent with the former one. In the former usage, ''tu'o'' is used precisely when it doesn't matter what you replace it with (out the the various unmarked alternatives -- le/lei/lo/loi/ro/lo'e/le'e), because they all end up describing the same state of affairs. In the latter use... well, I haven't got my head around it enough to say how it differs, but surely it does...? --[[User:And Rosta|And Rosta]]
 ;: * Okay, then in the later usage, the quantification is deleted, and so the meaning of the sumti must be determined without quantifying over the underlying set. It doesn't claim that the underlying set is a singleton; in fact it avoids making any claim whatsoever about the cardinality of the underlying set, so it is consistent with the desire to not have to make claims about the cardinality of inherently singleton sets at all. So it is inconsistent with the above statement "'''tu'o broda''' implicates '''lo pa broda'''", but it is not inconsistent with the motivation for using it in the first usage. --[[Adam|Adam]]
{{See also|null quantification}}
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