Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rwf4s-0009acC; Thu, 6 Apr 95 03:05 EET DST Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.11p1+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id DAA06434 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 03:05:37 +0300 Received: from LISTSERV.FUNET.FI (LISTSERV@FIPORT) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HOZYMV4PHC006QWU@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Thu, 06 Apr 1995 00:05:23 +0200 (EET) Date: Thu, 06 Apr 1995 00:52:55 +0100 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: More about scopes In-reply-to: (Your message of Tue, 04 Apr 95 13:22:01 EDT.) Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: ucleaar Message-id: <01HOZYMVTM4M006QWU@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2340 Lines: 51 Jorge: > > > > (4) le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe goi ko'a > > > > Each of the three men carries it, one box. > > In this case, I don't think (4) shd entail they all carried the same > > box. Subsequent uses of koha will remain within the scope of le ci > > nanmu, and it would not be a problem for there to be three boxes. > Hmm... I'm not happy with that mainly because {pa tanxe goi ko'a} is > assigning up to three referents to ko'a, which looks odd. The {goi} > assignment becomes dependent on the whole context, rather than on the > single sumti to which it attaches. In general, assigning more than > one referent to ko'a, I think is to ask for trouble. 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. Your qualms I think can be generalized: users are liable to make many "errors" as far as scope is concerned. Even in English, people do that (e.g. using "Everyone didn't go" to mean "Not everyone went"). I think we should accept that any grammar that can unambiguously encode scope is going to sometimes make excessive demands of its users. > 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. I note with satisfaction that Livagian uses different anaphors for the 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. --- And