From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Fri Sep 23 03:24:28 1994
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA11869
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Fri, 23 Sep 1994 03:24:26 -0400
Message-Id: <199409230724.AA11869@nfs1.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 8406; Fri, 23 Sep 94 03:28:15 EDT
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8066; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 03:28:15 -0400
Date:         Thu, 22 Sep 1994 18:18:06 BST
Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk
Subject:      TECH: zo lo ce'o zo le (was: any? (response to Desmond))
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

This is an idea I aired with Colin Fine during the early stages
of last year's British Logfest, when there were just the two of
us there, but haven't yet given it a wider exposure.

cu'u la lojbab.

> But how do you evaluate a story:

> "lo nanmu cu klama co jibni lo ninmu .i le nanmu cu cpedu le ninmu lenu
> kansa klama le dansu nunsalci"

> "A man goes near a woman.  And the man asks the woman to
> accompanyingly-go to the dance-celebration."

> Now what do you make of this?  Is the first sentence inherently true
> because at least one man has at some time gone near a woman?  If so, it
> makes "lo" rather useless.  I think that there may indeed be a 'typing'
> going on here, and the 2nd sentence "le" is an instantiation that tells
> us that the first sentence WAS referring to a specific man and a
> specific woman.

I think the way to view this sort of situation is that the
"introductory" {lo}s effectively supply long-scope existential
quantification of anonymous variables, which are subsequently
referred to by the {le}s.
In other words, it's as if you'd said

    da poi nanmu ku'o de poi ninmu zo'u: tu'e da klama co jibni de
    .i da cpedu de lenu kansa klama le dansu nunsalci tu'u

I think this similar to a view espoused some time ago by someone else -
Jim Carter?

Here I'm glossing over any distinction between {da poi broda} and
{lo broda}.  I'm still not comfortable with this, but I need to
revisit the sources.

Sorry I don't have more time to contribute to this debate generally
at the moment, but I'm glad to see that it appears to be making
progress.  I may come back in later.

co'o mi'e .i,n.