Message-Id: <m0sVQuU-0000ZEC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 10 Jul 1995 18:02:40 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: indefinites - Lojbab's phonecon with Cowan (finally!)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1150
Lines: 32

la djan cusku di'e

>        In essence, the rule I'm proposing that da-series sumti have nested
> scope, but descriptors co-equal scope.

Then we couldn't say:

        ro le verba cu citka lo plise

to say that each child had an apple, unless we mean that they all
had the same one. The right expression would be:

        ro le verba cu citka da poi plise

Unfortunate, because we lose {lo} for the most useful function.
I doubt that the co-equal scope is of much use in general.

> An open question is what happens in sentences that contain both descriptors
> and variables.  I think that all the descriptors effectively move to the
> left end of the prenex: they have scope over the full sentence.

There are other problems as well. How do you refer to masses with
nested scope? The only way would be {da poi gunma ...}, since the mass
articles {loi} and {lu'o} would always have to have maximal scope.
The same goes for {lu'a}, the only way to get nested scope would be
{da poi cmima ...}.

I don't like the rule, it seems to me that the distinction is
artificial. I would be against it, but any rule will be better than
nothing at all.

Jorge