From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 26 06:46:06 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 74119 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2003 13:46:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Sep 2003 13:46:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Sep 2003 13:46:05 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1A2sv6-0006Q7-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:46:04 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A2su8-0006Pd-00; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:45:04 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.112]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A2ste-0006PG-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:44:34 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-43.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.43]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE60A5B69E for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:43:59 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <000a01c38434$3fbe2e60$a2e1fea9@oemcomputer> To: References: <20030925124941.16806.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: Shakespearian word order Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:27:33 +0100 Organization: Livagian Consulate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 6293 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20775 xorxes: > la and cusku di'e > > > > xorxes: > > > > > > > > FOOL: All thy other titles thou hast given away: > > > > > > > > That thou wast born with. > > > > > 2) ro lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au ny poi do se jinzi > > > > So a less glorky equivalent would be > > > > ro da poi -avatar lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au da poi do se > > jinzi > > > > ?? -- In your version, ny is to be glorked as da. > > > > In this case, it all begins to make sense. > > Yes. I'm assuming {ny} is under the scope of {ro}, and bound by it. OK. We see here the pitfalls of glorky anaphora... > > I think it works if ny = da, but not if ny = {lo do drata noltcita}. > > On the latter reading, it is equivalent to: > > > > lo do drata noltcita ku goi ko'a zo'u ko'a poi do se jinzi ku'o goi > > ko'e zo'u ro **ko'a** do se bejdu'a > > > > rather than > > > > lo do drata noltcita ku goi ko'a zo'u ko'a poi do se jinzi ku'o goi > > ko'e zo'u ro **ko'e** do se bejdu'a > > Right. > > > Would you say that > > > > 1. lo broda cu brode zo'au by poi brodi > > > > is equivalent to > > > > 2. lo borda poi brodi cu brode > > > > rather than to > > > > 3. lo broda poi brodi zo'u lo broda cu brode > > > > ? I feel that 1=3, not 2. > > The problem is that 3 seems so pointless that 2 just imposes itself. CLL gives an example like (3) ("ko'a zo'u broda" or suchlike) as an example of prenexation used for topicalization, with the prenexee binding an implicit zo'e. You don't even need binding -- cf. "My mood today is such that the sun seems to be shining with especial brilliance" -- where "my mood today" is a topic but not an argument. > I would say it is equivalent to > > 4. lo broda poi brodi zo'u by brode > > so 1=2=4. I can't see a logic for 1=2. (It'd be okay with noi rather than poi, because noi merely adds information.) > I think we've never discussed what happens when a poi-restriction is > added to a bound variable other than the first time it appears. What > does {ro da poi broda zo'u da poi brode cu brodi da poi brodo} mean? > I would say it has to mean {ro da poi broda zi'e poi brode zi'e poi > brodi zo'u da brodi da}. i.e. 5. ro da ga na ge broda gige brode gi brodo gi brodi da My first intuition was: 6. ro da ga na broda gi ge brode gige brodo gi brodi da On reflection, perhaps (6) is what 7. ro da poi broda zo'u da noi brode cu brodi da noi brodo would mean, while (5) is, as you say, the meaning of the poi sentence. > If that's how it works, then the additional > restriction of ny in the postnex of the Fool's sentence is just a case > of that, assuming ny is bound by ro as I would expect. I agree. Once ny is glorked as referring to the variable bound by ro, it's all hunkydory. --And.