From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBCeyZjzBBoE1hGoow@googlegroups.com Tue Sep 06 06:48:28 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R0w0k-0001oK-Hy; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:48:27 -0700 Received: by yie36 with SMTP id 36sf6570979yie.16 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:48:16 -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:from :date:message-id:subject: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=40ncl9+/puT7OlkFeeR1eTtXuHpc6GSza1exzEp2oR0=; b=GHmf11eVhi0AZK0Yg3/C65589lZo6AKF9LUgtuhp2iUxnXtlX/PQ9283GdBKbAGh8d ihn1uwX+BYAYvU2TXiNf38hP15pJ+PNYlcCgs4UmGIwJecyn0HUSQd47MHlIoZrlbPQx ovqxKJYTOpW6tuRWEFqR3zMDa6C8tyi2pwemY= Received: by 10.236.125.161 with SMTP id z21mr2432259yhh.3.1315316894660; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:48:14 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.233.7 with SMTP id f7ls1767854anh.7.gmail; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.185.4 with SMTP id t4mr24135134yhm.3.1315316893371; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.185.4 with SMTP id t4mr24135130yhm.3.1315316893358; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yi0-f46.google.com (mail-yi0-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g24si2083352yhe.4.2011.09.06.06.48.13 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.46 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.46; Received: by yie30 with SMTP id 30so4389638yie.5 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.181.196 with SMTP id l44mr14726581yhm.37.1315316893115; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 06:48:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.102.139 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:47:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110906102408.GA2615@gonzales> From: Luke Bergen Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 09:47:53 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] gadri and scope To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.46 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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=20cf305639652e631c04ac46143f --20cf305639652e631c04ac46143f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Actually, because xorlo has no default quantifiers I think all three are incorrect as "equivalences". I think several of them are *possible* understandings of the original sentence, but not equivalent. As far as I understand it... {ro da zo'u da brode lo broda be da bei de} = {ro da brode zo'e noi broda da de}. If I'm remembering correctly, {lo broda} can, in general, be replaced by {zo'e noi broda} it is truly that unspecific. On Sep 6, 2011 8:14 AM, "Ian Johnson" wrote: > 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. > -- 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. --20cf305639652e631c04ac46143f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually, because xorlo has no default quantifiers I think all three are= incorrect as "equivalences". =A0I think several of them are p= ossible=A0understandings of the original sentence, but not=A0equivalent= . =A0As far as I understand it...

{ro da zo'u da brode lo broda be da bei de}

=3D

{ro da b= rode zo'e noi broda da de}.

If I'm remembering correctly, {lo= broda} can, in general, be replaced by {zo'e noi broda} it is truly th= at unspecific.

On Sep 6, 2011 8:14 AM, "Ian Johnson" = <blindbravad= o@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you sure (iii) = is even what you wanted? {di} seems to have come in from
> nowhere, among other problems.
>
> Anyway, I don't ac= tually 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
> <= br>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
&g= t;> {ro da zo'u da brode lo broda be da bei de}
>>
>> should be equivalent (under xorlo) to one of
>&g= t;
>> (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 z= o'u broda da de}
>> (iii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de su'o d= i broda de di}.
>>
>> Which?
>>
>> I th= ink (ii) is the best choice, on the bases of naturality and
>> use= fulness.
>>
>> (i) is what you'd get if you took exportation to t= he 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 yo= u consider tanru
>> units, linkargs included, to correspond direct= ly to relative clauses.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to th= e Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, se= nd email to lo= jban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googl= egroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://grou= ps.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>

--
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.
--20cf305639652e631c04ac46143f--