From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Sun Sep 29 11:23:42 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vijD-0004hq-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:23:39 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8TIRhGZ053708 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:27:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8TIRh1r053707 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:27:43 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:27:43 -0500 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: <20020929182743.GA53141@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1727 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 05:36:16PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la djorden cusku di'e > > > You are not taking > > > into account that {e} has a scope of its own as well. When you > > > split {paroi ko'a e ko'e} into {paroi ko'a ije paroi ko'e}, you're > > > saying that {e} has scope over {paroi}. If {paroi} had scope over > > > {e} you could not make the expansion. Expanding {e} is equivalent > > > to exporting {ro} to the prenex. > > > >Where's the book say that? And strictly speaking btw, since the > >claims of pavdei and reldei aren't related (e instead of jo'u) the > >scoping of quantifiers from the first one won't change the meaning. > >I don't think it makes sense to talk about quantifier scope for > >{e}, which has no quantifiers. >=20 > Whether the book says it or not in so many words, {e} does have > scope. Consider {naku ko'a e ko'e broda}. You can't expand this > to {naku ko'a broda ije naku ko'a brode}, precisely because {e} > does not have scope over {naku}. But you can expand {ko'a e ko'e > naku broda} to {ko'a naku broda ije ko'e naku broda}, because in > this case {e} does have scope over {naku}. First of all, what you're talking about here is totally different: na behaves differently because it needs to export to the leftmost end of the prenex (inverting any quantifiers) before being interpreted. Next, though, is that all of the above interpretations work provided that ko'a and ko'e either can do quantifier inversion automatically (which I think makes sense) or that in this case they were bound to single items so inversion is a no op: naku ko'a .e ko'e broda =3D=3D naku zo'u ko'a .e ko'e broda =3D=3D naku zo'u ge ko'a broda gi ko'e broda It is false that: ko'a and ko'e broda. This is the truth function FFFT, which you can get with ko'a na.enai ko'e broda ko'a .e ko'e na broda or ko'a na broda .ijenai ko'e broda ko'a na broda .ije ko'e na broda which means naku ko'a broda .ije naku ko'e broda =3D=3D naku zo'u ko'a broda .ije naku zo'u ko'e broda works fine. > The relation between {e} and {ro} is not something I'm postulating > for Lojban, it is something that is there as part of their logical > meanings. I'm not even sure what the relation you're suggesting is anyway. You have "ko'a .e ko'e" and can say "ro le re broda" meaning the same thing... so what? You can always say the same thing in many different ways, and the transformation loses information. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9l0YeDrrilS51AZ8RAjnCAJ9SMLQOVkqV1AyBOrB2+p7Cp51qMgCgxupL zORoNCkL6yrbQ7gq1LSdmk8= =c77p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--