Message-Id: <m0sOSRO-0000YjC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 21 Jun 1995 12:08:40 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: ri ra ru, Rah! Rah! Rah!
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1398
Lines: 33

> >> >        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?)
> >> 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?

No, the prenex would be {so'a da poi gerku zo'u}

> That first
> sentence is logically "da poi gerku zo'u so'a da cu se denci".

That means "For at least one dog, most of it has teeth", but it is
not equivalent to the original one. (By "most of it" I understand
something as illogical as {so'a lo pa gerku} would be.)

> 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.

Well, I don't see anything logical about it, but it doesn't really
matter. Usually there won't be a single sentence by itself, so in
real texts {ru} won't possibly refer to an unstated prenex.

Jorge