From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 28 09:41:58 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 16:41:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 34659 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 16:41:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 16:41:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.103) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 16:41:57 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 09:41:57 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.43 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:41:57 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 16:41:57 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2002 16:41:57.0519 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5C269F0:01C2670D] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.43] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16157 Here's another argument on why {paroi ro mentu} has to mean "once per minute" and not "once in an interval that contains every minute": As a general rule, we want {broda ko'a e ko'e} to expand to {broda ko'a ije broda ko'e}. I don't think we want tags that explicitly contain quantifiers to break this rule, so {mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei e le reldei} means "I went to the market once on Monday and I went to the market once on Tuesday" (or was it Sunday and Monday?), it does not mean that I went once on the sum of Monday and Tuesday. To get that meaning we have to say {mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei ku joi le reldei}, "I went once in the Monday-Tuesday period". If we accept that {e} must expand as usual even with quantified tags, then the same must apply to quantified sumti, since the quantifier {ro} corresponds closely to the connective {e} for these purposes: {mi klama le zarci paroi ro le re djedi}, "I went to the market once on each of the two days". To say that I went once in the two-day period we can say {mi klama le zarci paroi lei re djedi}, which corresponds to {le pavdei ku joi le reldei}, or in this case we can also say {mi klama paroi le djedi be li re}. Conclusion: the quantifier of a tagged sumti always has scope over the quantifier within its tag, even though the latter appears first in the expression. Otherwise, these tags would have perverse and unwanted effects on logical connectives. A different issue altogether is the interaction of quantified tags with other than its own sumti. In this case we can have: {mi klama paroiku la paris e la romas}. This expands to {paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas} "Exactly once, I went to Paris and I went to Rome." I have no idea if from that we can further expand to {mi klama paroiku la paris ije mi klama paroiku la romas}, "I went to Paris exactly once and I went to Rome exactly once", I think we shouldn't. Depending on how this goes, then tags will or will not have scope over quantifiers of following sumti other than its own. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com