From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRC3wZ_nBBoEjc4mHQ@googlegroups.com Sat Nov 20 06:52:56 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PJoo8-0004hH-47; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:55 -0800 Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35sf311954wyb.16 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=23/GP55dLLCxBehZONyMQVA+z2kAQQX4y8Ddniy4D6g=; b=s4TkRrFLlayvXZqt0YFyZ1For78HMEzGdCVOuie4kr8SDtz3jlaGvQ3zaCzQKlkXea BUgHehjI6tA2NxVvtq6vzNpiYsMqoPcXqKUt/l4Fx7za6Bxk0aKeRde0bDRqLDteuN6P cCh8zV1wMD2KPCiiLe8zjls+daHv6Hl+tBWuc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=kTVv2qFZpAejeHK08XobkTN/2izJITg2Orp5eZnDx1Njke4KE82YW6GX3GOhwbo8QF DRgW+XP3a9ITNB3E8vNqPzyOn1+mhuVmE4ShE43XFXnu8rK8UoaZLHNqtJ/erqVG4P/L E3XIXaiaSSn7l1wzMHTvQwFBW0lG6Y5RgKYRE= Received: by 10.216.237.34 with SMTP id x34mr406508weq.25.1290264759930; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:39 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.68.80 with SMTP id k58ls1446959wed.0.p; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.233.136 with SMTP id p8mr164695weq.12.1290264756852; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.233.136 with SMTP id p8mr164694weq.12.1290264756812; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f179.google.com (mail-wy0-f179.google.com [74.125.82.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m20si296256weq.11.2010.11.20.06.52.35; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.179; Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so5771419wyg.24 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.7.90 with SMTP id c26mr3740972wbc.83.1290264754980; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.138.16 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 06:52:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:52:34 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] non-clausal ke'a From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM, tijlan wrote: > What could this mean: > > [.i] mi ke'a citka > > I suppose it's syntactically valid. But what relativised sumti could > it refer to? Would it make more sense if it followed another sentence: > > mi viska lo plise .i mi ke'a citka > > Could we say that this {mi ke'a citka} is a sentential expansion of a > clause that could describe {lo plise}, as in this: > > mi viska lo plise poi mi ke'a citka I don't like overloading "ke'a" like that, because the two interpretations of "ke'a" could come into conflict: mi pensi da poi ge ke'a cpana lo jubme gi mi ke'a ba citka Does that mean that I will be eating the table, or thinking about what's on the table and will be eating that? > I'm asking this as I've been thinking about the difference between > "le/la/les" and "en" in French: > > Je vois une pomme. Je la mange. > (I see an apple. I eat it.) > mi viska pa plise .i mi ri citka > > Je vois des pommes. Je les mange. > (I see apples. I eat them.) > mi viska su'o plise .i mi ri citka > > Je vois des pommes. J'en mange. > (I see apples. I eat "of them".) > mi viska su'o plise .i mi ___ citka > > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/en#French > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_personal_pronouns#The_pronoun_en > > Would {ri/ra/ru} alone be an accurate translation of "en", which > differs from "le/la/les" in the referent's quantity (i.e. whereas "Je > la mange." means that the whole of the object is eaten, "J'en mange." > doesn't imply such an entirety)? My guess is that {su'o ri}, that is > {su'o su'o plise}, would be more accurate than a bare {ri}. But I also > vaguely feel that "en" might have something to do more with > relativising "ke'a" than with back-counting "ri/ra/ru" (or the lerfu > solution, for that matter -- "py" in this case). This is the usual problem of mixing pro-sumti with quantifiers. A quantifier has a scope, and when you use a pro-sumti to pick something bound by a quantifier from outside the scope of the quantifier, trouble follows. This is called a "donkey pronoun", and to find out why you can start by reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_pronoun To see this more clearly, expand the "su'o plise" to a properly formed logical expression: [su'o da poi plise zo'u (mi viska da)] .i mi citka ri "ri" is outside the scope of "su'o", and yet it points to the bound variable "da". What can that possibly mean? From a strictly logical point of view, it is nonsense, a bound variable doesn't have a referent that "ri" could pick from it. The bound variable is just a place holder for all the things in the domain of quantification, in this case all the apples. In this particular case, you may say that it's obvious that "ri" should pick just those members of the domain of quantificationj that make "mi viska da" true, but if the context is slightly more complex, this won't always work. My own opinion is that in "mi viska su'o lo plise .i mi citka ri", "ri" points to "lo plise", not to "su'o lo plise" which is not logically well defined. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.