[lojban-beginners] Re: spofu pemci

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 3/15/07, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 02:07:29PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> >
> > 5a)  su'o cinfo cu nakni gi'e femti
> > 5b)  Some lions are male and female.
> >
> > 6a)  su'o cinfo cu nakni .ije su'o cinfo cu femti
> > 6b)  Some lions are male and some lions are female.
> >
> > but (5) and (6) mean
> > very different things (because {ro} and {gi'a} cannot change their
> > relative scope without a change of meaning).
>
> You mean {gi'e}.

Yes, I meant {su'o} and {gi'e}.

({ro} and {gi'a} also can't change their relative scope, but that would be
a different example.)


> Huh.  I thought that the *definition* of {gi'e} is that it is
> meaning-equivalent to the {.i je} version.

Only when dealing with unquantified sumti. When dealing with quantifiers,
you need to take quantifier scope into account.

> This turns out to not
> exactly be the case; the CLL says that all connectives (except
> certain tanru-internal cases) can be transformed into *some* {.i JA}
> case, but not how to do it.  Interesting.
>
> I assert, in apparent agreement with you, that {su'o cinfo cu nakni
> gi'e femti} == {su'o da poi cinfu zo'u da nakni .i je da femti}, and
> that that is false, and different from 6.

Right.

mu'o mi'e xorxes