In a message dated 5/6/2001 1:07:06 AM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
<pc:
> arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> ko broda da
>
> means
>
> I hereby command that there be some da such that do broda da
>
> and not
>
> There is some da such that I hereby command that do broda da
>
> which cannot be expressed in Lojban satisfactorily.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> {da zo'u ko broda da} and probably {da se broda ko}. Structure words
> aside, extending scope requires anaphora of the scope determiner (here
> ko = do).
Three responses.
1. Your proposal is counter to current convention, which is that {ko}
means "make this sentence true if {ko} were replaced by {do}".>
well, that depends upon how you interpret "this sentence" Since a aprenex is
always "to a sentence," I take short scope in front, i.e., the beginning of a
illocutionary scope is the beginning of the shortest sentence of which the
illocutionary operator is part (with a variety of ways of expanding, of
course).
<2. Your proposal seems unable to cope with the contrast between (b) and
(c):
a. "I command that you cause her to eat something."
="I command that you cause that there be something that she eats."
b. "I command that there be something that you cause her to eat."
c. "There is something that I command you to cause her to eat.">
I assume that you mean these to be expansion of "Get her to eat something",
not literally the problems sentences. But, in any case, the various
positions around gasnu should work: prenex to the whole(c), lenu ko'e citka
da (a). b is different, not being a command to do at all, but a fiat quid --
maybe e'ocai zasti fa da poi do gasnu lenu ko'e citka da
<3. There are much more common and more serious problems with the scope
of imperative operators than ones like (a-c). Consider (d/d'):
d. Make a note of my telephone number.
d'. Make a note of a telephone number of mine.
This means (e/e'):
e. For my telephone number, make it the case that you make a note of it.
e'. For a telephone number of mine, make it the case that you make a
note
of it.
It does NOT mean (f):
f. Make it the case that you make a note of my telephone number.
f'. Make it the case that you make a note of a telephone number of mine.
-- for these would be satisfied if you wrote down any old number but then
took steps to make sure that the phone company assigned this number to me.>
Again, I would use prenex but I suspect that this is common enough that we
need a new convention here, as we have already in various other world
shiftings, about the referent of definite descriptions therein. since that
problem is not completely worked out yet, ...
|