Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu (uga.cc.uga.edu [128.192.1.5]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA12294 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:30:12 -0400 Message-Id: <199507251430.KAA12294@locke.ccil.org> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0180; Tue, 25 Jul 95 10:21:34 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0064; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:05:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:01:41 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Indefinites X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Tue Jul 25 10:30:17 1995 X-From-Space-Address: <@uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> >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. You have assumed "lo plise" is a singular. Since there is no explicit quantifier, "ro le verba cu citka lo plise" does not say that each child has one apple. If Cowan is right and >This argument makes me wonder whether "vo tuple" should be ambiguous >between "vo lo tuple" and "vo da poi tuple". then if you said "ro le verba cu citka pa plise", you would have no problem. >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 ...}. lu'o/lu'a aren't descriptors, and hence may or may not be covered under a widest scope rule for descriptors. And I would need to see an example where nested vs. equal scope made a significant difference with masses. Two different subcomponents of broda are both "loi broda" because part of the nature of the mass concept is that the portion represents the whole - and you thus don't use masses to make distinctions such as re da cu broda loi brode trying to imply that each da was in a broda relationship with a different portion of brode. lojbab