X-Digest-Num: 369 Message-ID: <44114.369.2035.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:02:04 -0000 From: "And Rosta" Subject: RE: 3 loafs X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 2035 Content-Length: 2245 Lines: 50 > From: "Robert A. McIvor" > > >> And Rosta wrote: > >>> From: John Cowan > >>> > >>> Robert A. McIvor scripsit: > >>> > >>> > >> In Loglan, I would have said 'da [pa] gentci ne rebfoa' He/she/it > >>> > >> again-ate a bread-loaf, which put the stress on the repetition of > >>> > >> the eating act rather than the characteristics of the loaf. > >>> > > > >>> Ah, I see the problem. You mean to say that he is eating a loaf (the > >>> same or another) on a *different* occasion, whereas I understood you to > >>> mean that he is eating a loaf on *multiple* occasions, in which case I > >>> think it is clear that the same loaf is meant. > >> > >>As for the actual Lojban ex given above, my interpretation is John's. > >> > > Maybe I confused things a bit by the E translation 'again-ate'. > >However, as a matter of principle, I consider a predicate to indicate an > >operation which takes arguments. I see no reason why the arguments should > >be considered to be linked unless the arguments themselves specify a > >linkage. To me, gentci just indicated two eating operations linked as a > >time-series. Since the bread arguments were both indefinite, in my > >opinion there is no reason to consider them linked. However, if, as in E, > >one wished definitely to indicate that the same loaf was not eaten twice, > >one could say ne norsao rebfoa (a not-same bread-form). Does Lojban > >interpret predicates differently? It is simply a question of scope. Is "again-eat da" the same as "Ex, again it is the case that x is eaten" or as "again it is the case that Ex, x is eaten" ? For Lojban, it is the former, because the scope of scope-sensitive elements expressed by the predicate is within the scope of scope-sensitive elements expressed by the arguments. Conversely, and for the same reason, "again, he bread-ate" would mean "again it is the case that Ex, bread, he ate x". As far as I can see, the grammar has to take a position on the relative scope of scope-sensitive elements expressed by the predicate, and the Lojban position seems to me the most appropriate. I don't fully understand your rationale for opting for a different interpretation. --And.