Date: Thu, 06 Apr 1995 12:42:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: More about scopes
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HP10W7H7VA002MCI@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2064
Lines: 59

And:
> Obviously I see your qualms, but (a) the logic of the current system
> supports my interpretation, and (b) occasionally one might actually
> want to have a koha with reference varying in this way.

Ok. Now we need a default quantifier for {ko'a}. I propose {ro}, because
I see {ko'a} as a kind of {le}, just like {da} is a kind of {lo}.

For example:

        le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe goi ko'a
        i ko'a blanu

        Each of the three men carries one box, boxes which will be
        referred to as "ko'a".
        Each of the boxes is blue.

(And not: At least one of the boxes is blue. Of course, I could say
{su'o ko'a blanu} for that.)


> > A related question:
> >        le ci nanmu cu prami ri
> > Does that mean "each of the three men loves each of the three men", or
> > "each of the three men loves himself"? What about with {vo'a} instead
> > of {ri}?
> This is an excellent question. I see no basis for {ri} and {voha}
> behaving differently.

Well, {ri} goes back to a sumti, while {vo'a} goes to a sumti place
(which could even be empty). They could in principle act differently.


> I note with satisfaction that Livagian uses different anaphors for the

What is Livagian? I never heard of it before.

> two meanings. In Livagian they have the following logical form:
>
>   [1] Ea, a is a set, 3 is cardinality of a; Ab, if b is a member of
>   a then b is a man; **Ac, if c is a member of a then** b loves c.
>       "Each of the three men loves each of the same three men"
>
>   [2] Ea, a is a set, 3 is cardinality of a; Ab, if b is a member of
>   a then b is a man, and b loves **b**.
>       "Each of the three men loves himself"
>
> The bit of logical form provided by each of the contrasting Livagian
> anaphors is shown flanked by **. (For expository purposes I've
> ignored the specificity of {le} in your example.)
> [I mention this not to advertise Livagian, but to - I hope - clarify
> the nature of the problem.]
>
> I think it desirable to have both types of anaphor.

But we only have one, which one is it?

Jorge