From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Oct 14 13:44:22 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.22)
	id 1A9W1a-0004vE-TG
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:44:10 -0700
Message-ID: <20031014204208.83033.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:42:08 PDT
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Bach-Peters sentences
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <200310111404.08187.phma@webjockey.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 6437
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net> wrote:
> On Saturday 11 October 2003 09:16, And Rosta wrote:
> > John, on another list:
> > > Then there are Bach-Peters sentences, like "The pilot that shot at it
> > > hit the MIG that chased him", where looking for the referents of "it"
> > > and "him" sends you in a closed circle....
> >
> > So: How to translate into Lojban? With the same referential loop?
> 
> le vijysazri poi celre'o fi [?] cu darxi le me my.ibugy. poi jersi ra
> Not obvious what "[?]" should be. There is no pronoun that refers to a 
> postcedent sumti, as {ra, ri, ru} refer to an antecedent. {la'edi'e} might 
> work, but {di'e} etc. usually refer to at least a clause, so the pilot shot 
> at the event of the MIG chasing him, which makes no sense.

  le vijysazri poi celre'o fi vo'e 
           cu darxi
    le me MIG poi jersi vo'a

should work, I think. The problem appears if you try to resolve each 
{le} independently. If you resolve the two {le}s together, there 
is no problem. If we turn it into a universal quantification, instead
of a specific, we get:

  ro vijysazri poi celre'o fi vo'e 
           cu darxi
    ro me MIG poi jersi vo'a

which I think must be resolved as:

  ro da poi vijysazri ku'o ro de poi me MIG zo'u
   ganai ge da celre'o fi de gi de jersi da gi da darxi de

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com