From cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin Mon Jul 1 15:52:32 1991 Return-Path: Resent-From: cbmvax!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin Resent-Message-Id: <9107011745.AA03293@relay1.UU.NET> Return-Path: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 90 16:07:24 EDT From: Guy Steele Message-Id: <9006012007.AA15701@verdi.think.com> To: jimc@math.ucla.edu Cc: lojban-list@snark In-Reply-To: jimc@math.ucla.edu's message of Thu, 31 May 90 09:23:26 -0700 <9005311623.AA25120@julia.math.ucla.edu> Subject: Proposed changes to lexeme ZIhA grammar Resent-Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 13:09:41 EDT Resent-To: John Cowan Status: RO From: jimc@math.ucla.edu Date: Thu, 31 May 90 09:23:26 -0700 ... 4. An anaphor for a previous sentence, with replacement arguments. (Example: Karen wants to go swimming. Me too. Meaning: I (speaker) want to go swimming; "I" replaces "Karen".) This is off the main point, but I cannot resist. I am reminded of a toy company's slogan in the 1960's: "Every boy wants a REMCO toy--and so do girls." My peers and I would misquote this as: "Every boy wants a REMCO toy--and also girls." The point of the gag (admittedly puerile, but at the time we were in fact puerile, after all) is that there is some ambiguity about the anaphoric reference: it is intentionally unclear whether "girls" is to replace "boy" or "toy". A precise language should also be able to state such ambiguities precisely (though not necessarily concisely). Question: how is this gag to be expressed in Loglan? Perhaps some way of talking about sets of references? Actually, because the "pronouns" of Lojban are all genderless and syntactically similar, would it not be all too easy to respond to "Karen wants to go swimming" by saying something like "And I want that" in such a way as to mean "And I want " rather than "And I want "? But this is a matter of confusion--a pun--rather than of ambiguity. --Guy Steele