From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRD4j6DnBBoEBBDc0w@googlegroups.com Sat Nov 20 09:40:28 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PJrQC-0003qr-Hr; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:40:26 -0800 Received: by gwj20 with SMTP id 20sf3813576gwj.16 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:40:14 -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:message-id:x-ymail-osg:received :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MPtHj9pbxv9N97Mj7+DWbamFcPkm1a7QZM35QxPAKwE=; b=GRqnimQBwQO98v3qn7xBckGvXyyRh2V1YV7vXpM2jjT4VOEAoRdXXDhBiEC6P8u8q8 x3+Ws1oQrCV6RAT/Jzhe17KL/ZYrM00BFuFrG/JuIRfw25QWqe9jTQowlIJNXfavYYth 0WEsb7ThcI/yVO3AiVpVos8hB1aunSWo8Uu/Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references :date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version: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:content-transfer-encoding; b=jNYU9M0XUlLYed//RSn/SNOmd+8zr2LFG/1r2DbVSThIEK0NDAAV2qaneS6TicCY/J 1kCwyb6LU/yZ4ijrNaPi+NnOMSntSGsEqwmfj1Z059xrutOAVSLn+wytSfKc5TMuEvO3 12WCmluDXzR8r+7WecHhVpQkqQATXTyK8kCGw= Received: by 10.151.63.32 with SMTP id q32mr360101ybk.24.1290274808808; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:40:08 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.164.26 with SMTP id r26ls806612ano.4.p; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.154.16 with SMTP id b16mr672326ane.53.1290274807738; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.154.16 with SMTP id b16mr672325ane.53.1290274807723; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.199.119]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id c20si694062and.5.2010.11.20.09.40.06; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.119 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.142.199.119; Received: (qmail 94691 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Nov 2010 17:40:03 -0000 Message-ID: <369894.93543.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 2jXB9zIVM1khZGY8Fz9TsA52Yk2Gw.yHRlEUVtK5tvA45Qw ys_lqzF3ow8IZ5t.dFg7SxRl0hzBKqn4TjZDm1hmJuXahYRfrcgGyh.a26yT rJkbXWNmkaD0pJS9pnPYq.UlNtW3trVtAwzCm9he7LrBoRdKIFNNIT5cf.EY Yp5vovDzM0I5UiHQcSqdgK9NeSI63n_z_mFRVAlBnEKTzwJa5o7M25fp4ZQl JR.UHLKxPcL5AfqcnjKSs6koOmTABQ1wtXIhCeeWnG1bOs9z2HLSi.OybEvw 5_INTWfyiOFsfAX9sg5yoNSq2.tI99QUFu2B..mP7wtEcnSI1ToAjO6K6c1U Q9Ddz.RB_tn6dKSPYbdNIrb2UyBhNB1i.BxWyD1.N2PX21TndL.F0K4Ba Received: from [99.92.110.13] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:40:02 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/504.5 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 References: Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:40:02 -0800 (PST) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] non-clausal ke'a To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 68.142.199.119 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The other possibility, which also has some support in logic (or at least=20 discourse analysis) would be that 'ri' picks up 'le su'o lo plise' or some = such=20 construction, which does not actually occur but refers to the right things,= =20 i.e., the apples on the table in this case. =20 ----- Original Message ---- From: Jorge Llamb=EDas To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, November 20, 2010 8:52:34 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] non-clausal ke'a 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 --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups= =20 "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20 lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at=20 http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. =20 --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.