From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:58:15 2010 Subject: Re: TECH: man bites dog problem To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:05:18 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511152104.QAA06504@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 15, 95 08:35:46 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1643 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 15 17:05:18 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: mi joi la .and. cusku be di'e casnu > > > 1. I guess {re lo mu broda} becomes {re boi mu broda}. > > No, that's ungrammatical. "re lo mu broda" is scoped in conjunction, > > like "lo mu broda" (note that there must really be only five broda). > > So is there a way to say it? {re me lo mu broda}, I suppose. I think that is semantically ill-formed, as "ci lo re broda" would be. I think you need "re me ro lo mu broda", because what you have is "re mo su'o lo mu broda", two of the at-least-one of the five. > > > 2. How does {re broda} vs {re lo broda} help to disambiguate > > > A. re le mu nanmu cu batci ci le mu gerku > > > we still need a ruling on whether A. is 3 dogs or 6 dogs. > > Three dogs. To get six dogs, use: > > re me le mu nanmu cu batci ci me le mu gerku > > with the new definition of "me". This is equivalent to: > > re da poi me le mu nanmu vau ci de poi me le mu gerku zo'u da batci de > > Hmm. I see. Is {ci broda} equivalent to {ci me lo broda}? Yes, or rather "ci me ro lo broda" for the same reasons as above. > I'm still not sure how to {lo}-lessly do: > {mehi ro lo ci lo prenu cu klama} [under current system] > "There is a trio of people not all of whom are goers." > > My best guess is: > > mehi ro me ci prenu cu klama > mehi ro me ci lo prenu cu klama Yes, I believe either of those will work. I now feel that the possibility of this kind of thing is the best joint argument for TLI_style "me" (makes a predicate which is true of each of the sumti referents) and for "PA broda" = "PA DA poi broda" equivalence. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.