From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARCvnZjzBBoE3Qk92w@googlegroups.com Tue Sep 06 05:14:54 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R0uYC-00076l-BD; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:14:54 -0700 Received: by fxd2 with SMTP id 2sf3798457fxd.16 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:14:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=1u14ndMGweUklfvrxhu2N1dG+nuCaCJSSDneO7EU1jc=; b=GWBYiciwAmgh1Di8CUcqhoA/xhqW069zt2YWMl4hDG9acLlBlXATzhfnlL1/YRAWEA Tz/b2Qlwjr9U+nDdKYdD8iSJqYOb5H3pwTy1arOBh7PeOcPPFYOhBqMz4IOzYgwY9ckL GQooFXwpuqSeHAKpXmjL7i0zCetuDj1P3Iv8w= Received: by 10.223.6.12 with SMTP id 12mr706288fax.49.1315311279745; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:14:39 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.2.69 with SMTP id 5ls520886bki.1.gmail; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.142.71 with SMTP id p7mr1018283bku.16.1315311278213; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.142.71 with SMTP id p7mr1018281bku.16.1315311278186; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f51.google.com (mail-fx0-f51.google.com [209.85.161.51]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t20si1764462fab.2.2011.09.06.05.14.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.51; Received: by mail-fx0-f51.google.com with SMTP id 10so4082938fxh.10 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:14:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.50.150 with SMTP id z22mr2700865faf.30.1315311277864; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 05:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.73.200 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 05:14:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110906102408.GA2615@gonzales> References: <20110906102408.GA2615@gonzales> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:14:37 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] gadri and scope From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015173fe7827c75a204ac44c5ea --0015173fe7827c75a204ac44c5ea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Are you sure (iii) is even what you wanted? {di} seems to have come in from nowhere, among other problems. Anyway, I don't actually know, but I also don't actually see how (i) and (ii) are semantically different, because I don't know how multiple {zo'u} work semantically. mu'o mi'e latros On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > {ro da zo'u da brode lo broda be da bei de} > > should be equivalent (under xorlo) to one of > > (i) {ro da su'o de zo'u da brode zo'e noi broda da de} > (ii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de zo'u broda da de} > (iii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de su'o di broda de di}. > > Which? > > I think (ii) is the best choice, on the bases of naturality and > usefulness. > > (i) is what you'd get if you took exportation to the prenex as a golden > rule, and (iii) is what you'd get if you considered it all-important > that {lo} give a constant. > > (ii) makes its own sense - it's what you get if you consider tanru > units, linkargs included, to correspond directly to relative clauses. > > Martin > -- 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. --0015173fe7827c75a204ac44c5ea Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Are you sure (iii) is even what you wanted? {di} seems to have come in from= nowhere, among other problems.

Anyway, I don't actually know, b= ut I also don't actually see how (i) and (ii) are semantically differen= t, because I don't know how multiple {zo'u} work semantically.

mu'o mi'e latros

On Tue, Sep = 6, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
{ro da zo'u da brode lo broda be da bei de}

should be equivalent (under xorlo) to one of

(i) {ro da su'o de zo'u da brode zo'e noi broda da de}
(ii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de zo'u broda da de= }
(iii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de su'o di broda d= e di}.

Which?

I think (ii) is the best choice, on the bases of naturality and
usefulness.

(i) is what you'd get if you took exportation to the prenex as a golden=
rule, and (iii) is what you'd get if you considered it all-important that {lo} give a constant.

(ii) makes its own sense - it's what you get if you consider tanru
units, linkargs included, to correspond directly to relative clauses.

Martin

--
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.
--0015173fe7827c75a204ac44c5ea--