From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Sep 24 21:03:06 1997 Message-Id: <199709250202.VAA12395@locke.ccil.org> Date: Wed Sep 24 21:03:06 1997 Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? X-To: And Rosta X-cc: Lojban List To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <0EH000DGPP220W@newcastle.edu.au> X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2723 On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, And Rosta wrote: > For example, everyone is either citizen of France or citizen of > some other country. [NB INCLUSIVE OR] I want to describe > the latter group as "na`e fraso zei selgugde" [I'm taking x1 of > selgugde to be a citizen]. But since for example someone can be a > citizen of both France and Britain, "na`e fraso zei selgugde" > would not work if it entails "na fraso zei selgugde". "na fraso > ..." gives me everyone who isn't French, whereas I want > everyone who is a citizen of a country other than France. > For that I would like to use "na`e fraso", but will not be > able to if everyone bar me gets their way! Why not just use "drata"? Surely examples like this are part of what it's meant for. Geoff From drv.cbc.com!c9709244@cbgate.cbc.com Thu Sep 25 01:45:01 1997 for ; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:45:00 -0500 (EST) Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:03:41 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:03:41 +1000 (EST) From: HACKER G N To: John Cowan Cc: Lojban List Subject: Re: na`e In-Reply-To: <0EH000EL2YVEKQ@newcastle.edu.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Content-Length: 1331 On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, John Cowan wrote: > > "cei" doubles up the functions of "goi" and "poi". When applied > to an assignable pro-bridi, it assigns it; when applied to an > existential pro-bridi, it restricts it. This isn't explicitly > stated in the book because I was leery of saying too much about > second-order quantification when my understanding of it is > quite shaky. > > But anyway, relative clauses can only be applied to sumti, and > while "su'o bu'a" is technically a sumti, in the prenex > (by special exception) it is functioning as a quantifier + > pro-bridi. So the true grouping is > > su'o (bu'a cei (na vreta)) zo'u ... > ` For-some (relationships which are (not reclining)) ... > > rather than > > (su'o bu'a) (poi na vreta) zo'u ... > Speaking-of-(some-things which-satisfy "bu'a") > (which do not recline) Oh! That's a real twist on what's written in the grammar, I think. I would perhaps have been a bit more comfortable with "su'o nu bu'a", "su'o su'u bu'a" or some other such abstraction to express a predicate relation in a prenex, because it seems more consistent with the grammar elsewhere, but I'm not overly fussed about it, because I don't consider myself likely to use these kinds of constructions. Geoff