From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Aug 13 19:00:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 14 Aug 2001 02:00:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 46406 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2001 02:00:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Aug 2001 02:00:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.140) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Aug 2001 02:00:15 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:00:15 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.213 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:00:14 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.213] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: partial-bridi anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] no'a Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:00:14 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Aug 2001 02:00:15.0179 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC2471B0:01C12464] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9574 la and cusku di'e >So a bare ko'a refers to each member of the set separately, while >a quantified ko'a requantifies over the set. > >Hmm. I can see the parallel with {da}, and I can see how this allows >us to say the things we need to say, but I'm uncomfortable with >the way the referent of ko'a shifts between members to set, depending >on whether it's requantified. ko'a never refers to the set. (Neither does da refer to the set to which it is restricted.) It would work like this: le ci ninmu ku goi ko'a cu viska ko'a Each of the three women sees herself. le ci ninmu ku goi ko'a cu viska ro ko'a Each of the three women sees each of the three women. >And the parallel with {da} seems rather feeble. With {da}, the poi >clause restricts the range of da from everything to to just those >things that have the property expressed by the clause. Further >restrictions can be added, but restrictions are cancelled only by >ra'o. (All this is as per my understanding of your proposals.) I hadn't considered further restrictions, but it makes sense that they be accumulative. >With {ko'a}, you're assigning the name "ko'a" to something; either >separately to each member of a specific set, or collectively to >the specific set. I can't see the underlying logic of how you >want things to be. No, if you assign it collectively to the set, it becomes a mass and the individuals are no longer accessible (except with lu'a). > > > > An isomorphism is a one-to-one homomorphism. > > > > > >And what's a homomorphism, then? > > > > A mapping F such that F(x*y) = F(x)*F(y). Mind you, it's been > > years since I've seen any of this, so I might be forgetting > > something. > >I imagine that the terms must mean something else in linguistics, >then, since they have something to do with form matching meaning. It does have to do. You have a mapping, say from form to meaning. x, "the cat", maps to a certain meaning F(x), and y, "the dog", maps to a certain meaning F(y). Now you combine the two forms (the operation * above), and you get x*y = "the cat and the dog" this maps to another meaning F(x*y) which is a combination of the meanings F(x) and F(y). So the meaning of "the cat and the dog" is mapped to a certain combination of the meanings of "the cat" and of "the dog", it does not map to some meaning that has nothing to do with the meaning of "the cat" and the meaning of "the dog". Or something like that anyway. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp