Re: [lojban] Re: Shakespearian word order

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

xorxes:
> la and cusku di'e
> > > > xorxes:
> > > > > > > > FOOL: All thy other titles thou hast given away:
> > > > > > > >       That thou wast born with.
> > > > > 2)   ro lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au ny poi do se
jinzi
> >
> > So a less glorky equivalent would be
> >
> > ro da poi -avatar lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au da poi do se
> > jinzi
> >
> > ?? -- In your version, ny is to be glorked as da.
> >
> > In this case, it all begins to make sense.
>
> Yes. I'm assuming {ny} is under the scope of {ro}, and bound by it.

OK. We see here the pitfalls of glorky anaphora...

> > I think it works if ny = da, but not if ny = {lo do drata noltcita}.
> > On the latter reading, it is equivalent to:
> >
> > lo do drata noltcita ku goi ko'a zo'u ko'a poi do se jinzi ku'o goi
> > ko'e zo'u ro **ko'a** do se bejdu'a
> >
> > rather than
> >
> > lo do drata noltcita ku goi ko'a zo'u ko'a poi do se jinzi ku'o goi
> > ko'e zo'u ro **ko'e** do se bejdu'a
>
> Right.
>
> > Would you say that
> >
> > 1.  lo broda cu brode zo'au by poi brodi
> >
> > is equivalent to
> >
> > 2.  lo borda poi brodi cu brode
> >
> > rather than to
> >
> > 3.  lo broda poi brodi zo'u lo broda cu brode
> >
> > ? I feel that 1=3, not 2.
>
> The problem is that 3 seems so pointless that 2 just imposes itself.

CLL gives an example like (3) ("ko'a zo'u broda" or suchlike) as an
example of prenexation used for topicalization, with the prenexee binding
an implicit zo'e. You don't even need binding -- cf.

  "My mood today is such that the sun seems to be shining with especial
   brilliance"

-- where "my mood today" is a topic but not an argument.

> I would say it is equivalent to
>
> 4. lo broda poi brodi zo'u by brode
>
> so 1=2=4.

I can't see a logic for 1=2. (It'd be okay with noi rather than poi,
because noi merely adds information.)

> I think we've never discussed what happens when a poi-restriction is
> added to a bound variable other than the first time it appears. What
> does {ro da poi broda zo'u da poi brode cu brodi da poi brodo} mean?
> I would say it has to mean {ro da poi broda zi'e poi brode zi'e poi
> brodi zo'u da brodi da}.

i.e.

5.  ro da ga na ge broda gige brode gi brodo gi brodi da

My first intuition was:

6.  ro da ga na broda gi ge brode gige brodo gi brodi da

On reflection, perhaps (6) is what

7.  ro da poi broda zo'u da noi brode cu brodi da noi brodo

would mean, while (5) is, as you say, the meaning of the poi sentence.

> If that's how it works, then the additional
> restriction of ny in the postnex of the Fool's sentence is just a case
> of that, assuming ny is bound by ro as I would expect.

I agree. Once ny is glorked as referring to the variable bound by ro,
it's all hunkydory.

--And.