From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Sep 29 14:26:23 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 21:26:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 65312 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 21:26:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 21:26:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.149) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 21:26:22 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:26:22 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.40 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:26:21 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:26:21 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2002 21:26:22.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB8B78A0:01C267FE] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.40] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16229 la and cusku di'e >You seem to be repeating what you originally said, rather than >responding to my point, which is that {na brode ko'a e ko'e} >does not expand to {na brode ko'a i je na brode ko'e}, and >therefore it cannot be taken for granted that >{broda ko'a e ko'e} >should always expand as >{broda ko'a i je broda ko'e} You're right. Jordan does accept this expansion, but he doesn't accept that it is equivalent to the {ro} case, so I got mixed up with the argument I was having with him. The quantifier inside the tag is not quantifying the tag. The tag is a single tag, essentially a selbri to its sumti (but not to other sumti of the main bridi). As a aselbri it can have quantified arguments, but it cannot itself be quantified. So {paroi }, from the point of view of this sumti, is like {ra'inrapli li pa }, where {ra'inrapli} has the place structure "x1 repeats x2 times in interval x3". This {li pa} is not a quantifier. The sumti of {paroi} sees {pa} as embedded in the selbri that the tag represents. Other terms don't see it that way, because they are not arguments of that selbri. (Do you agree that tags are essentially like a selbri to its sumti?) > > >2. For {ci roi le pavdei ku joi le reldei} and {ci roi lei re djedi}, > > >I would like to be sure that there is some way to say that the > > >three occasions are distributed throughout the two days, such > > >that {ci roi le pavdei} and {ci roi lei pa djedi} would be false. > > >If that is doable, then my reservations would be assuaged. > > > > I don't understand why you want that. If {ciroi le jeftu} is > > true, it can also be true that {ciroi le pavdei}. Similarly for > > {ciroi lei ze djedi}, and {ciroi lei re djedi}. > >Is this {le pa jeftu}, you mean? Yes. >I'm not disputing that {ci roi le pa jeftu} means what you >say it does. But I was thinking that (on the scope that you >argue against), {ci roi le ze djedi} means that each of the >occasions happens on each ot the days, which is a potentially >useful meaning. I wrote {ciroi lei ze djedi}. I'm lost now. I don't understand how one occasion can happen on each of seven days. Wouldn't that make it seven occasions? It can last for seven days, but that's a different thing, to be covered with {ze'a}. >Given that we can say what we want using ze'a and roiku, I don't >suppose it matters all that much which reading is given to >roi+sumti. It should be whichever is the more convenient, I guess. Certainly the more convenient one is the one that allows us to say "x times per minute/hour/day/etc." directly. But I also think that it is the only truly sensible one, because of how the relationship between tag and sumti works. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com