From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 21 23:25:57 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3498 ; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:25:56 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Wed, 21 Jun 95 07:28:22 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa15101; 21 Jun 95 8:27 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1478; Wed, 21 Jun 95 03:25:23 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1102; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:25:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 03:25:26 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: ri ra ru, Rah! Rah! Rah! X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506210827.aa15101@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R >> >So what does this mean: >> > >> > so'a da poi gerku cu se denci ije so'i da batci da >> > Almost all dogs have teeth, and most of those bite (themselves?/ >> > those that bite?/those with teeth?) >> >> It means someone is trying to come up with a difficult case that is hard >> to understand, and has succeeded. >> >> I start with using instead of that final "da": >> ri = themselves (respectively or distributively is a bit ambiguous) > >Respectively in my opinion. That is, if {ri} can refer back to {da}. I >think {ri} should refer back to any sumti whatever, but that's not the >canon. > >> ra = those with teeth >> ru = dogs > >How do you get these to be different? There is only one sumti in the >first sentence. There is an implied prenex "da poi gerku zo'u", right? That first sentence is logically "da poi gerku zo'u so'a da cu se denci". The reference to a "ru" when there is no overt sumti to be referred to suggests that one is referring to an unstated sumti, and the unstated prenex seems the logical (zo'o) place to come up with it. lojbab