Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:42998) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RFadV-0005ip-6Q; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:01:06 -0700 Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf4409820bka.16 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XaPbFrLVEJaz0OCBulHkmEkG5NfJF8gcfI3D/mCKjhk=; b=1k2tvJjl+YLPDzGElFI2KLOHYT7ZA5HZhMZXEeJrD9/mktDzZ9yHA1EuOldhYbLvwR JiHmlJq7ALXxIPRLux0gUZTkB9cYXA460Bd5FkHtM8QVMN2jN2iXFcMQm1eaJR1i67MH FM6zyfGrQc3KwUuhucmngBqWJ63z8ngWhJtA0= Received: by 10.223.5.149 with SMTP id 21mr366545fav.2.1318809646548; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00:46 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.240.17 with SMTP id ky17ls1225075bkb.3.gmail; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.138.79 with SMTP id z15mr1938946bkt.8.1318809645770; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.138.79 with SMTP id z15mr1938944bkt.8.1318809645756; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f43.google.com (mail-bw0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n1si2722244bkn.1.2011.10.16.17.00.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.43; Received: by bke17 with SMTP id 17so4623911bke.2 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.77.71 with SMTP id f7mr20615668fak.33.1318809645537; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.39.35 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Oct 2011 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20111016005823.GJ3779@gonzales> References: <20111015155009.GA5916@gonzales> <20111015185726.GC3779@gonzales> <20111015203444.GD3779@gonzales> <20111015221511.GF3779@gonzales> <20111015232240.GG3779@gonzales> <20111016005823.GJ3779@gonzales> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:00:45 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 20:52 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : >> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Martin Bays wrote: >> > >> > Quite. If it does do anything, there's also the issue of which gets >> > priority in {ro lo broda poi brode}. >> >> Does it make an actual difference? "ro lo broda poi brode" =3D "ro da >> poi me lo broda zi'e poi brode". > > It does make a difference if {ro} is a singular quantifier. > > {ro ko'a poi broda cu brode} -> "for every atom x among the (plural) > referent of {ko'a} such that broda(x), brode(x)" > > So (forgetting about kinds for a minute, since this is purely an issue > of plural semantics) in {ro lo broda poi ke'a brode}, the question is > whether the relative clause is evaluated with a potential plural > referent of {lo broda} for {ke'a}, or whether it's evaluated once per > atom below the plural referent of {lo broda}, with that atom for {ke'a}. > > I think the latter does make most sense. I agree, although we still have a way to differentiate both possibilities, at least for the "lo broda ku" type of sumti (not for "ko'a"), because there are three different points where a relative clause may be attached: "lo (1) broda (2) ku (3)". We could say that when attahed at (2) the restriction occurs before singular quantification over referents, and that when attached at (3) it occurs as a restriction on the singular quantifier. One problem with that is that (2) is the "normal" place of attachment (i.e. with elided "ku") and (3) requires an explicit "ku". But I guess it doesn't matter too much because in many cases both meanings will agree anyway. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.