From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Sep 29 08:44:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 15:44:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 6142 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 15:44:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 15:44:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 15:44:21 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17vgHp-00049C-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:47:13 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vgHG-00048t-00; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:46:38 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vgHD-00048k-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:46:35 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8TFoiGZ051028 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:50:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8TFoipq051027 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:50:44 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:50:44 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: <20020929155044.GA50774@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1714 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16204 --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 10:28:33PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la djorden cusku di'e > > > baku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas > > > >This works in this case, but as we discussed it's not something you > >can generally do unless you move every other tense (and in the paroi > >case, move everything with a quantifier) into the prenex also to > >preserve order. >=20 > Of course, but exactly the same happens with {pa prenu}. You > can't treat it separately from all other things that have > relevant scope. I agree. > > > ta'eku mi klama la paris e la romas > > > > > > This is: > > > > > > ta'eku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas > > > Typically, I go both to Paris and to Rome. > > > >I agree with the first line (though, as I said above it doesn't work > >in the general case without moving other shit into the prenex also) >=20 > Of course, everything with scope that comes before it must move > to the prenex before it. Yes. > >but I think your translation to english is bad. I think the sentence > >means the translation you give for the next sentence. To get the > >sentence you said, I think you would need either > > ta'eku mi klama la paris. jo'u la romas. > >or > > ta'eku mi klama la paris. joi la romas. >=20 > Ok. That's a possibility. You're saying that tags never > have scope over other sumti. Then when we apply this to > {paroiku}: I'm saying tags have scope defined by position, of course... > (1a) paroiku mi klama la paris e la romas >=20 > expands to: >=20 > (1b) paroiku mi klama la paris ije paroiku mi klama la romas >=20 > And: >=20 > (2a) paroiku mi klama ro le re tcadu As discussed, this transformation is lossy; you are saying the same thing but only because of context, and this transformation also isn't guarenteed to always be valid. > expands to: >=20 > (2b) roda voi tcadu zo'u paroiku mi klama da > For each of the (two) cities, I once went to it. Nononono. You're breaking what we just talked about. Because "paroi" has a quantifier, you can't just switch the order in which it appears relative to da and claim it has the same meaning. You can do paroi ku ro da voi tcadu zo'u mi klama da if you want, but of course that wouldn't help you "proove" your viewpoint. Note, btw, that since you are using a "ku" after paroi here paroi is its own term, and you can't move other quantified terms to the prenex without moving the ones before it if you want the same meaning. > Also: >=20 > (3) paroi le pavdei e le reldei mi klama la paris >=20 > will expand to: >=20 > (3a) paroi le pavdei mi klama la paris > ije paroi le reldei mi klama la paris I agree with this one. > And similarly: >=20 > (4) paroi ro le re djedi mi klama la paris >=20 > will expand as: >=20 > (4a) roda voi djedi zo'u paroi da mi klama la paris You're breaking the same rules again. "paroi ro le re djedi" is a single term. You can't just bring parts of it forward, all of it must go if you want to keep the same meaning. You could do paroi roda voi djedi zo'u mi klama la paris. > Q.E.D. Umm yeah right... It's quite clear to me that either convention for tag+sumti scopes can be delt with consistently, and the book doesn't say which is right. The book does say thing go left-to-right for terms, but since these are in the same term in the parse it's not a definite answer. I think left-to-right makes most sense, however, because it seems to be what would be expected when using a tag which has a quantifier in it, since everything else is left-to-right. This might be something that is worth gathering usage statistics on PAroi+sumti or just plain tag+sumti for all tags which can have quantifiers (re'u, etc). If people have been mainly using it with right-to-left, then since the book isn't definite here we would probably go that way, but if not the normal futher-left-gets-wider-scope rule seems to make sense. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline [Attachment content not displayed.] --h31gzZEtNLTqOjlF--