Return-Path: Message-Id: <9204040428.AA22458@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Sat Apr 4 04:26:26 1992 Reply-To: CJ FINE Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: descriptions and quantification X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sat Apr 4 04:26:26 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN When I thought about Bob's response to my pre-relative grammar suggestion, I realised I didn't fully understand the interactions of gadri, quantifiers and relatives. Here is some stuff I wrote down to get it clear in my mind. I'm posting it because 1) It might be wrong- please tell me if it is. 2) If not, it might help other people who are confused as I was. LE First, "le" means "(at least one of) the things I am (indicating by means of) describing as" So "le cukta" means "(at least one of) the things I am describing as is-a-book". LO "lo" means "(at least one of) the things in the universe which actually ..." So "lo cukta" means "(at least one of) the things in the universe which actually is-a-book". QUANTIFIERS PRECEDING If we put a quantifier before the description, it replaces the "at least one of". ci le cukta 3 of the things I am describing as is-a-book ci lo cukta 3 of the things in the universe that actually is-a-book QUANTIFIERS FOLLOWING Here is where I'm not quite so sure. The default preceding quantifier becomes "all of", but I'm not quite sure where the inner quantifier goes. I *think* it's like this: le ci cukta (all of) the three things I am describing as is-a-book lo ci cukta (all of) the three things in the world which actually is-a-book [It's the last one I'm least sure of. Is this what it means?] Then doubly quantified sumti fall out naturally: re le ci cukta two of the three things I am describing as is-a-book re lo ci cukta two of the three things in the universe which actually is-a-book INDEFINITE SUMTI We are allowed the kludge "quantifier selbri". I take it this means pre-quantified "lo": ci cukta = ci lo cukta three of the things in the universe which actually is-a-book The grammar also allows "quantifier quantifier selbri", eg ciboi vo cukta It is tempting to conclude this means ci lo vo cukta 3 of the 4 things in the universe which actually is-a-book but that would mean that the [vo cukta] in [ciboi vo cukta] has a different meaning from a [vo cukta] tout court. This suggests that it means ci lo vo lo cukta 3 out of some 4 of the things ..... Is this right? RELATIVE CLAUSES Where do these fit in? le cukta poi mi nelci ke'a (at least one of) the things I am describing as [is-a-book which I like it] le cukta noi mi nelci ke'a (at least one of) the things I am describing as [is-a-book incidentally I like it] lo cukta poi mi nelci ke'a (at least one of) the things in the universe which actually [is-a-book which I like it] lo cukta noi mi nelci ke'a (at least one of the things in the universe which actually [is-a-book incidentally I like it] With quantifiers: ci le cukta poi mi nelci ke'a 3 of the things I am describing as [is-a-book which I like it] le ci cukta poi mi nelci ke'a the 3 things I am describing as [is-a-book which I like it] ci [lo] cukta poi mi nelci ke'a 3 of the things in the universe which actually [is-a-book which I like it] lo ci cukta poi mi nelci ke'a the 3 things in the universe which actually [is-a-book which I like it] With fronted possessor: le do cukta (at least one of) the things I am describing as [of-you is-a-book] lo do cukta (at least one of) the things in the universe which actually [of-you is-a-book] le do cukta poi mi nelci ke'a (at least one of) the things I am describing as [of-you is-a-book which I like it] re lo do ci cukta noi mi nelci ke'a 2 of the 3 things in the universe which actually [of-you is-a-book incidentally I like it] - note that the quantifier comes after the possessor, though my translation has to turn them round. If I am right it implies that you have precisely 3 books, and remarks that I like them. re lo do ci cukta poi mi nelci ke'a 2 of the 3 things in the universe which actually [of-you is-a-book which I like it] This makes the weaker implication that you have only 3 books that I like. Comments, anyone? kolin