Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:17:42 -0500
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu
Message-ID: <20020927161742.GB28382@allusion.net>
References: <20020927061015.GB24912@allusion.net> <an1qa9+j883@eGroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <an1qa9+j883@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Jordan DeLong <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net
Content-Length: 1338
Lines: 36

           
--IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:34:49PM -0000, jjllambias2000 wrote:
[...]
> So, I would say that the tag always falls within the scope of the
> sumti's quantifier. (Unless someone comes up with interesting
> cases where the opposite interpretation makes sense.)

Now that I think about it, I actually think the book's example goes
the other way.  In
  mi klama le zarci reroi le ca djedi
unfortunately we can assume there's only 1 ca djedi, and thus it
doesn't say definitively.  But if we assume the general left to
right rule applies, and consider the same thing meaning "current
days" instead of the "current day", it doesn't make sense that the
re should change to re * number_of_days.

The forethought isn't neccesary here anyway if you use a gadri
like we were discussing, but I think in the general case tags
probably scope just like anything else.

--=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
           
--IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX 
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

[Attachment content not displayed.]           
--IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX--