From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDzmaDnBBoERu7X8A@googlegroups.com Sat Nov 20 10:01:39 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PJrkm-0004aW-Go; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:39 -0800 Received: by wwb31 with SMTP id 31sf650351wwb.16 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:30 -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=iS5123XXnKrF5MTVNZdRRHVB4xi4H7RoOICX6GVutWo=; b=XRD2ADQhf+Hbt7hyiNuInUFpvduuFxTVHQU0ufH6i/3P1yEsdhDJmNVHHWG+qj8VeM 5Hi37mqmUL5e+O7VBI03zD6ynvwvGHDvUfj6uVmq0upu3y7pu+ogNAbIaP8kcKMY4Pwx p00nWgbF2foAQY+XhFlYqWWEGHX0ZU7xtJYO0= 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=mlP1utBqiTcrtKn7Ak3wJTJCG3MMjHqEUnHrfuHck3BhhijPjycSQhzw5BFXomabeD PzI6FjSviHoVp2SXs2F8ZmRLBuhU3TVYXJApTaiMdDD6/ykeUeluTJHlpoioxEHLYk35 10TGyZfIa25Pt52kUukjBn2w4nDs+zYkFVaQQ= Received: by 10.216.141.94 with SMTP id f72mr1318605wej.13.1290276083819; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:23 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.79.7 with SMTP id h7ls1500686wee.1.p; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.19.147 with SMTP id n19mr296148wen.8.1290276081890; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.19.147 with SMTP id n19mr296147wen.8.1290276081825; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f173.google.com (mail-wy0-f173.google.com [74.125.82.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n18si314437wej.14.2010.11.20.10.01.20; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:20 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.173; Received: by mail-wy0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 26so5608124wyj.32 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.144.65 with SMTP id y1mr3851353wbu.199.1290276080312; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.227.138.16 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:01:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <369894.93543.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <369894.93543.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 15:01:20 -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 74.125.82.173 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 2:40 PM, John E Clifford wrote: > The other possibility, which also has some support in logic (or at least > discourse analysis) would be that 'ri' picks up 'le su'o lo plise' or some such > construction, which does not actually occur but refers to the right things, > i.e., the apples on the table in this case. Yes, that's what I meant by: > 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. The most obvious case where it doesn't work is when the quantifier is "no" instead of "su'o", since "ri" can hardly be expected to pick up "lo no lo plise". In: mi viska no lo plise .i ki'u bo ri se mipri "I saw none of the apples, because they were hidden." I expect "ri" to pick "the apples", not "the none of the apples that I saw". But that's not the only problematic case. If "su'o" is in turn within the scope of some other quantifier, there can be trouble too. I guess pragmatically it is inevitable that people will use "ri" and such to point to "(lo) su'o..." even when there is no actual "lo" in the antecedent, but I prefer the rule to be that "ri" looks for an actual sumti, and any pragmatic deviation from that is just a pragmatic deviation. 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.