From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jun 19 14:15:39 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9RTn-000356-Bu for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:39 -0700 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.154]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9RTh-000341-Ue for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:39 -0700 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id e12so495876fga.0 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=nsPx04MUQgHgAVo6hPWkvBa/zGDIbct6iVI7IhObSx0=; b=CgjsscQ4wXA6rpk763Vn9gQfxz9mX4ch6E5jXH/VekawmiGZPCzLJGaUHxXnk4edpF +on+1osPXsDeJFJomkH4Grz0joAXZ8G8T81jmKcYwgED8alGRS6OLPQ1QJJfyjsA1i9A Oi0yncq7V8XLtgguJOOnM/sMoVGoGQv018iQ4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=xKcQ9FfMY8Oebz+OA4B36an6STG5DvaMqWONzchO/aWkAKSnroHYqROv1CjzguxYFI UhDpLWAlVGIju1EAkDULu2gPyZoo1jl5sUcX2z2WgLREXB2B93xN5fRvdnjJbgy8OYI9 HYSWMjIff/Vgh5wOLoxP3d5AIKMBY54UJZlk8= Received: by 10.86.92.7 with SMTP id p7mr2705822fgb.72.1213910123419; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.89.11 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560806191415p78dcdf2eue53a4474923eb475@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:15:23 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] ci gerku ce'e re nanmu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14521 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list In section , CLL says: << Terms (which are either sumti or sumti prefixed by tense or modal tags) that are grouped into a termset are understood to have equal scope: 7.5) ci gerku ce'e re nanmu cu batci nu'i ci gerku re nanmu [nu'u] cu batci Three dogs [plus] two men, bite. which picks out two groups, one of three dogs and the other of two men, and says that every one of the dogs bites each of the men. >> I have two problems with this. The first one is with this definition of "equal scope", but I will leave that for another post. The second problem is that this use of termsets causes an ambiguity. The primary use of termsets appears when connecting two bridi that share the same selbri (and possibly some sumti). For example, given: (1) ci gerku re nanmu cu batci (2) re mlatu ci ninmu cu batci We can connect them with a logical quantifier: (3) ci gerku re nanmu cu batci .ije re mlatu ci ninmu cu batci and because they share the same selbri, we can use termsets so as not to repeat the selbri: (4) ci gerku ce'e re nanmu pe'eje re mlatu ce'e ci ninmu cu batci (This actually ends up being a bit longer than the unreduced sentence, but if there had been more terms in common we might have gained something, for example if both sentences had an additional {ca lo purlamdei cerni}.) But now what is the scope of the quantifiers in {ci gerku ce'e re nanmu}? Originally it was the ordinary scope, with the second in the scope of the first, but now they are grouped into a termset, does that mean that (4) is not after all equivalent to (3)? If so, this secondary use of termsets has eliminated the primary use. If (3) and (4) are equivalent, then termsets cannot always be used to get equal scope, and we don't have a reduced form for: (5) ci gerku ce'e re nanmu cu batci .ije re mlatu ce'e ci ninmu cu batci To make matters even more complicated, there is in CLL even a third use of termsets (mentioned in ) that could in principle appear together with the other two. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.