Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:36068)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRC9_LX1BBoEzaeylg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RKYS7-0001NA-S3; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:41:51 -0700
Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf443288bka.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:41:36 -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;
        bh=JrDVzkBceYIvN35lMWXMfoOWuZ8dtf+uuuPZGTk2Fpc=;
        b=ttA7X/RtNQL+SKkfHdXCn5rywJ/gXBnVc93TLLRZ7ooawBXmUdDgfQiyNV5QgpAZEb
         VWLZsSCvMJScdH8YBB7Z0WamOYUTyxayQBBFTskYXK7irj6k9JDN1H47hBJVlLbEhqPJ
         YjTO1JdyHcVYJonGa3mi0QFYOO49aqDx7q+xA=
Received: by 10.204.26.208 with SMTP id f16mr908385bkc.27.1319992893727;
        Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.29.7 with SMTP id o7ls3368231bkc.2.gmail; Sun, 30 Oct 2011
 09:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.38.195 with SMTP id c3mr805299bke.8.1319992892102;
        Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.38.195 with SMTP id c3mr805298bke.8.1319992892078;
        Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f49.google.com (mail-fx0-f49.google.com [209.85.161.49])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v27si8676473fad.3.2011.10.30.09.41.32
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.49;
Received: by faaf16 with SMTP id f16so5905039faa.8
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.91.73 with SMTP id l9mr18357387fam.22.1319992891617; Sun,
 30 Oct 2011 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.5.165 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20111030151405.GC32586@gonzales>
References: <4EA7BF06.5050103@gmail.com>
	<4EAA8AC9.2010000@gmail.com>
	<20111029001437.GA5535@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2f4jH3Y-45PwMN=KZFMtxjHA7dbmU8en=NDZL=eS=o9PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111029145956.GB9385@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2c49SHSsw98hxgb0AxBP9WKWAYHBs6n2gzb29Mh6e-3ZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111029221510.GA32586@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2d5kcG8N=hsCDgdbW8Qs4ShvUBb8K1iH5jmAa+WSWfdtQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111030044700.GB32586@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2dFwiGNY3F2fU-FoXk1Y6OksR6GO_j3kXsTV1F5kRPK2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111030151405.GC32586@gonzales>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:41:31 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2dVVcYhkCYcFjtTr_iK1rC2sX5pr=Ct8-k+siAd=xMRCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
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 209.85.161.49 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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> And {.ei} is affected by scope?
>
> {.ei mi klama su'o zarci} -> I have to go to a market
> {mi klama su'o zarci vau .ei} -> There's a market I have to go to
> {su'o zarci mi .ei se klama} -> There's a market I have to go to
> ?
>
> Sounds good, though I don't see immediately what the scope rules should
> be (e.g. would it make a difference in the third sentence had I written
> {su'o zarci .ei [...]}? How about {su'o zarci ku .ei [...]}? Or do these
> in any case indicate that it's the market which should be coming to
> me? And is there a subtle difference between the second and third
> sentences?).

I was thinking of the difference between:

"lo mamta cu jungau lo panzi lo du'u .ei ri na jbibi'o lo cinfo"

and

".ei lo mamta cu jungau lo panzi lo du'u ri na jbibi'o lo cinfo"

The difference you point out I would probably express as:

".ei mi klama su'o zarci" vs, "su'o da poi zarci zo'u .ei mi klama da".

I'm not quite sure about what happens when you move ".ei" into the
body of the bridi, mainly because ".ei" attaches to the preceding
word, so it's hard to justify it not having scope over the preceding
construct. (That's a problem for the "zo'u .ei" case too.)

In any case, I don't think ".ei" changes the responsible agent. ".ei"
just says what ought to happen, not who should make it happen.  The
responsible agent in a "klama" relationship is normally the x1.

>> >> In any case the moral of the story was that there are sound
>> >> evolutionary reasons for the kind approach, since obviously we are all
>> >> descended from Cless and he is the one that got the right meaning. :)
>> >
>> > Somehow this doesn't seem to be the moral I've taken. Maybe Moople had
>> > a cousin with individuating parents?
>>
>> But what language do they speak? Not English, because in English we
>> can say "lions are dangerous, don't go near them".
>
> Yes, but we mean something about individual lions when we say it
> - namely that they tend to be dangerous.

That each individual lion tends to be dangerous?

If "lo cinfo cu ckape .i ko na jbibi'o ri" confuses Moople, then
"lions are dangerous, don't go near them" should confuse him just as
much, since they have the same logical structure: "ko'a broda .i ko na
brode ko'a".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.