In a message dated 10/5/2001 7:43:39 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
In the case of {le du'u ce'u broda} the ce'u is in a subordinate bridi Sorry, as I have said regularly, this {ce'u} is claerly in as subordinate a brid as is the one in {le du'u ce'u broda} and furthermore, as a linguist, you ought to know that it is. What is your point here? <You may mean something > special by this claim, but in its plain sense it is just false: > raising {le melba} from {mi senva le nu le melba cu cinba mi} allows > an illegitimate quantification, I don't see what illegitimate quantification is allowed.> To {da zo'u mi senva le nu da cinba mi} Ain't no such da, and no reason to think there is. <> fronting {le brode} in {da broda le brode} changes the meaning. > How does you theory deal with these? I recognize the second objection as prima facie valid, and "my theory" [I am happy for it to be called my theory, but before your dissent I would have taken it for uncontroversial fact] accounts for it thus: da broda le brode = x zo'u da broda ro lu'a x (voi brode)> Since the equation is not obviously correct (and is further partly untranslatable as it stands), I con't find this an account of anyhting. xis I suppose a mass that exists independently of this sentence in the viewof the speaker and later he will assign it as the reference of {brode}. What has this to do with the scope? Ah, so this is a terminological problem, as so often in loglan work (curse you again, JCB, for being a linguistic slob to Fennimore Cooper to shame). OK, now i have noidea what your claim means or how it affects the topic under discussion. You think that {le mamta be ce'u} violates it somehow, apparently, butI don't see how it even relates to it. Maybe, I should go against the usual habit and use another gadri? But no one does in the other cases -- what is special here? <When I accused you of bad faith in recent discussion you protested your innocence, so I had better keep a lid on my incredulity. "Bridi" means, almost always, "grammatical bridi, clause". {le mamta be ce'u} is not a grammatical bridi. These are statements of fact.> bridi:x1 (text) is a predicate relationship with relation x2 among arguments (sequence/set) x3 No "grammatical bridi", whatever that may mean, no "clause." Admittedly, this is usual Lojban sloppy terminology (as is selbri for "brivla or tanru," which runs throught Refgram). But here it is justified, since at about two, levels down -- if not jsut one, I forget the details of your scheme and whether it is more complex than mine -- the _expression_ here IS a grammatical bridi. And the transformations you want to make almost inevitably go through that level. <The principle I expressed says that (I recast it): When sumti phrase X is within sumti phrase Y and every bridi that contains X or Y also contains the other, then the bridi can be paraphrased, without changing meaning, in such a way that X is not within Y.> Well, completely rewritten it to change it from palpably false to trivially true. Since the only sumti which match the original case are externally conjoined sumti, which by definition can be split sententially, this is not a very interesting case. Alternatively, you can, as I suppose you intend, go from {la djoun du le mamta be la bil} to, say, {da du la djoun ije da mamta la bil} which will work assuming that the {le} is veridical and unique, which by your rules elsewhere, it is not. So, the meaning changes. |