From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:50:40 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 21448 invoked from network); 24 Mar 1997 22:16:13 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 24 Mar 1997 22:16:13 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <10.D3E07E07@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:16:12 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:52:51 GMT+0 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: lei xau-dja-sei X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 4514 Lines: 127 Message-ID: Replying to Jorge and then Trevor > > Anyway, I'm seeking something corresponding to exactly what I > > was after. > I know. How about: > le remei po'u pa fraso ku joi pa dotco > The couple which is a french and a german. I think the answer is that there is no general way of saying, say, "the/some footballers who are Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English". > > xj> le mamta be la xorxes a la and > > xj> Notice that this does _not_ expand to: > > xj> le mamta be la xorxes ku a le mamta be la and > > But it does expand to > > le ga mamta be la xorxes gi mamta be la and > Well, it would if that were grammatical, but it isn't. In a brief scan of my home mahoste & the www refgram I cannot find how to do forethought sumti tail connection. I thought GA was okay pretty well everywhere. > > 3a the sisters of the men [each of the men have sisters who are > > being referred to] (same as 2c) > le mensi be su'o le nanmu > Each of those that are a sister of at least one of the men. > Ah, I see, here we are not saying that each man _has_ a sister. > I think a prenex is in order then: > ro da voi nanmu zo'u le mensi be da > For each man, x: Each of x's sisters. > ("le mensi" is "ro le su'o mensi", so I am saying that there is > at least one mensi for each da.) Yes, that's good. I can't now remember whether that would solve most of the problems I'd been turning over in my head. I think it does. > > 3b the mothers of some men > Same deal: > da poi nanmu zo'u le mamta be da > It's not so bad. Kind of a topicalization thing, which is right, > because you are putting emphasis on the quantifier of the modifier. The more we use prenexes the better: it might help to make lojban writers think carefully about the meaning of what they're writing. > > (Same goes for "children of xorxes and and".) > This one's a bit tougher: > roda po'u lu'a la xorxes ce la and zo'u le panzi be da > For all x which is a member of {Jorge, And}: The children of x. > Can't think of a nice and short form. It's not too bad. > We could say: > la xorxes e la and zo'u le panzi be da > Jorge and And: Their children. > But you would have to believe me that da runs over the prenexed even > when not explicitly bound to them. It would be within acceptble > convention, though, what do you think? I think if the refgram doesn't say one way or the other then it's undefined in meaning. Would ro da po`u la xorxes a la and zou le panzi be da work? > > OK, but not enough of a solution for me. Change example to: > > > > 3c we are french and german [but not necessarily dual nationality] > Yes, I see, "mi'a fraso ja dotco" does not guarantee at least one > French and at least one German. Actually, this is not such a good > example because "mi'a" is a mass, so "mi'a fraso je dotco" would > probably give you what you want. Let's say you want "the people > are French and German", and you insist on using "le prenu" rather > than "lei prenu" for "the people". Then I don't know. That was what set me off originally. I was trying to do an English phrase that seemed trivially straightforward and then ran into this snag. > Yes, I think what's going on there is that we need external scope for > quantifiers of things which are sintactically internal. Maybe you can > do something with your old scope jumpers, which I forgot what they > were. I retracted them, realizing that it's not really feasible to tack them on to the existing grammar. From: Trevor Hill > so... you want to say "the mothers of x and y", meaning the mother of x > and the mother of y??? > Since it seems to me that "le" is supposed to refer _individuals_ > satisfying the x1 place of the inner bridi, (tell me if i'm wrong...), you > could say: > le mamta be pa lu'a le'i ko'a (plus) ko'e... > I'm not sure of the correct word to join sumti into a set like that, so i > stuck in the "(plus)" for that, but it seems to me that this means: > Those-I-describe-as mother(s)-[individually]-of > one member-of set (ko'a plus ko'e)....... Your "plus" is "ce", I think. Your example could refer to just ko`a's mother, though, so it's not a solution. > So to say it meaning "X who are/is [individually] mother(s) of both ko'a > and ko'e, it seems to me you could say: > le mamta be ko'a joi ko'e..... Or "e" instead of "joi". This meaning is easy to get. --- And