From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Wed Sep 24 11:37:51 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157])
	by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12)
	id 1A2EVx-0006Ht-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:37:26 -0700
Message-ID: <20030924183653.54010.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:36:53 PDT
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Shakespearian word order
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <010301c382c0$ee4f1e00$fa4279d5@oemcomputer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 6282
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


la and cusku di'e
> xorxes:
> > > > > FOOL: All thy other titles thou hast given away:
> > > > >       That thou wast born with.
> > I'd say:
> > 1)   ro lo do drata noltcita poi do se jinzi ku'o do se bejdu'a
> > 2)   ro lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au ny poi do se jinzi
> > are identical in meaning.
> 
> What does {ny} refer to in (2), exactly? I simply don't see a way for (2)
> to work.

{ny} is a variable bound by the quantifier {ro}, which quantifies over the
avatars of {lo do drata noltcita} with the restriction {poi do se jinzi}.

> > What else could the dislocated restrictive phrase do?
> 
> Partly it depends on the function of postnexes, but setting that aside,
> {ny poi do se jinzi} should refer to a subkind of whatever {ny} refers to.

Yes. And {ro} quantifies over the avatars of the subkind. 

> If {ny} refers to lo do drata noltcita, then we want to end up saying
> not {ro lo do drata noltcita} but {ro ny poi do se jinzi}.

Right. That's the only way I can interpret it:

  ro lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au ny poi do se jinzi

should be equivalent to:

  ro lo do drata noltcita poi do se jinzi zo'u ny do se bejdu'a 

{ny} and {lo do drata noltcita} just change places when we move the
postnex to the front, because we want the anaphor to appear after
its antecedent, but otherwise the expressions are equivalent.

> So what I don't get is how {ny poi do se jinzi} in the postnex manages to
> express the meaning "replace the antecedent of {ny} by {ny poi do se
> jinzi}".

Rather, it says "add restriction {poi do se jinzi} to the antecedent
of {ny}".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com