Message-Id: <m0sRCvK-0000YqC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 28 Jun 1995 21:29:39 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: TECH: AFTERTHOUGHT SCOPE
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2788
Lines: 97

> > I think that the coordinate case can be taken care of by adding
> > a {ro lo} in front of the second sumti.
>
> Using your (sensible) rules, that is. You are basically right,
> but what if sumti3 has coordinate scope to preceding sumti2
> and scope over preceding sumti1. For example:
>
>    ci da poi nanmu xa de poi rozgu e vo di poi ninmu zohu
>    da de di dunda
>
> As I think you recognize, {ro lo} doesn't do the job here.
> (I'm in favour of your {ro lo} proposal; I just don't think
> it is sufficient on its own.)

Yes, I agree that something else would be needed for that case.
But why wold they give the same six roses to four women? Giving
something to someone and then giving it to someone else is not
very polite. A more natural claim would be:

        ci da poi nanmu vo di poi ninmu xa de poi rozgu zo'u
        da de di dunda

Which can be said in afterthought, although using an ugly trick:

        ci nanmu vo ninmu xa rozgu cu setese dunda

I'm not sure if it would look better with your new cmavo.


> Okay, first, I mistakenly thought GOhA has sumti status.
> What I should have asked for was two new cmavo in KOhA:
>
>    * the outermost bridi - KOhA
>    * the localmost bridi - KOhA [this exists, as {nei}]

No, that's {dei}. {nei} is a GOhA.

> The current logic of {nei} and {noa} seems rather odd to me
> - it seems to give an infinite regression of bridis that contain
> copies of themselves.

{nei} is rather odd (and such a nice little cmavo, too)
but {no'a} has its interesting uses. For example:

        mi ba klama le zarci ba le nu do no'a
        I will go to the market after you do.


> So the structures I actually intended are:
>
>   SUMTI-1 + GOI + SUMTI-2
>   SUMTI-1 + GOI + LAhE-1 + (LAhE-2* +) KOhA
>
>   [where * means "any number of"]
>
> SUMTI-2 is an anaphor (pronominal reference) to a sumti.
>
> GOI is:
>     * X and Y have coordinate scope
>     * X has scope over Y
>     * Y has scope over X

Let's see how the example of the roses would look like. If we
make some more concrete assignments:

X xi'i Y:  X and Y have coordinate scope
X xi'a Y:  X has scope over Y
X xi'u Y:  Y has scope over X

then we have:

        ci nanmu xa rozgu vo ninmu xi'a ry dunda

Not too bad. Or another way to say the same thing:

        ci nanmu xa rozgu xi'u vo'i vo ninmu cu dunda

Those two would mean the same as:

        ci nanmu vo ninmu xa rozgu cu setese dunda

Did I understand it correctly?


> LAhE-1 is:
>     * the first term in the prenex of
>     * the last term in the prenex of
>
> LAhE-2 is:
>     * the next bridi up/down from (heading away from innermost/
>       outermost)

This looks really complicated. Do they let us say something that
can't be said with the other three? Perhaps you could give some
example?

Jorge