From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Tue Nov 05 17:17:43 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 05 Nov 2002 17:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 189Ep9-00006b-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 05 Nov 2002 17:17:40 -0800
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 gA61NMiR054966
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 19:23:22 -0600 (CST)
	(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 gA61NLDo054965
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 19:23:21 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 19:23:21 -0600
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: What the heck is this crap?
Message-ID: <20021106012321.GA54404@allusion.net>
References: <20021105222732.GH22843@digitalkingdom.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20021105222732.GH22843@digitalkingdom.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-archive-position: 2436
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


--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:27:32PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
[...]
> To wit: it is the opinion of the old-time experts that
>=20
> ca ro djedi lo nanmu cu cinba la meris
> lo nanmu ca ro djedi cu cinba la meris
>=20
> are distinct in meaning.
>=20
> More frighteningly, this implies that:
>=20
> ca le nu broda kei lo nanmu cu cinba la meris
> lo nanmu ca le nu broda kei cu cinba la meris
[...]
> And pretty much everyone on jboske seems to agree with it.  I don't
> normally read jboske, myself; xod pointed this out to me.

Believe it or not, I agree with the jboskeists on this.

In chapter 16, it says clearly that quantifiers scope to the right
just like one would expect.  This is said where:
	ro da de zo'u da viska de
	Everything sees something.

	da ro de zo'u da viska de
	There-is-an-X such-that-for-every-Y : X sees Y.

It also says that "ro prenu" =3D=3D "ro da poi prenu" around example 6.5

It also says in chapter 6 that "PA broda" =3D=3D "PA lo ro broda" around
section 8 "indefinite descriptions".

Since =3D=3D is a transitive operator we can then say that
	ro da poi prenu =3D=3D ro lo prenu
and that
	lo prenu =3D=3D su'o da poi prenu
(without binding da of course).

So the examples robin gives are in fact different -- moving them
changes the meaning because the quantifiers move.

pe'i this is all book lojban, though perhaps slightly hard to grok
from the pages.

--=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

--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9yG8JDrrilS51AZ8RAmXzAKDHGa01GNu63srn6kYWwJ67qewTJACfYtDN
JL4nKRVzx/9jH4z7HMfdoO8=
=DMoc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--