From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCvqJrzBBoEILY8tA@googlegroups.com Tue Sep 06 14:44:26 2011 Received: from mail-vx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R13RP-0000Hw-MC; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:26 -0700 Received: by vxh7 with SMTP id 7sf214513vxh.16 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:17 -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=owknt2WNaxvO0q/a4pQTQOVUO8eKprPJYSZsL7LadF8=; b=q2bJ2fkwso9IS1Zzda3LoGIfyxWpvcgvsCYx9lNRP1gMFrho3VHp3t5by9GLNZj4RP FeWq573Jy+pFqIWjxHEQWmUoDMf7xoweZ//enhiJt34kU1EQENAnypzHo3UKYXEcX5NV wsACh7rSkoF5zmxyarZ9XYq2xxph6Uu/GWINs= Received: by 10.220.39.73 with SMTP id f9mr936603vce.18.1315345455511; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.24.113 with SMTP id t17ls1396440vdf.2.gmail; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.30.47 with SMTP id p15mr2383949vdh.29.1315345454694; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.30.47 with SMTP id p15mr2383948vdh.29.1315345454686; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l6si6055031vdt.0.2011.09.06.14.44.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.44; Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so8222812vws.17 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.23.138 with SMTP id m10mr321438vdf.184.1315345454481; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.163.133 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:44:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110906102408.GA2615@gonzales> References: <20110906102408.GA2615@gonzales> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 18:44:13 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] gadri and scope 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 209.85.212.44 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:24 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 agree (but see comment below). > (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. I'm probably the only one who talks about "lo" giving a constant, but I never meant for that to contrast with functions. "lo" gives a constant as opposed to a bindable variable (da poi ...). It would be more correct to say it creates a function, albeit a constant function in most cases. So I don't think you will have anyone arguing for (iii). > (ii) makes its own sense - it's what you get if you consider tanru > units, linkargs included, to correspond directly to relative clauses. The only issue with (ii) is that it gives the "unexpected" reading to things like "lo mamta be ro da cu prami da". We always have the option of using the explicit prenex forms when there is a risk of confusion, and anyone who says "lo mamta be ro da cu prami da" when they do mean "lo mamta be ro da cu prami su'o de" is obviously just looking for trouble. 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.