Re: RV: na'e entails na?

[HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>]

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, And Rosta wrote:

> For example, everyone is either citizen of France or citizen of
> some other country. [NB INCLUSIVE OR] I want to describe
> the latter group as "na`e fraso zei selgugde" [I'm taking x1 of
> selgugde to be a citizen]. But since for example someone can be a
> citizen of both France and Britain, "na`e fraso zei selgugde"
> would not work if it entails "na fraso zei selgugde". "na fraso
> ..." gives me everyone who isn't French, whereas I want
> everyone who is a citizen of a country other than France.
> For that I would like to use "na`e fraso", but will not be
> able to if everyone bar me gets their way!

Why not just use "drata"? Surely examples like this are part of what it's
meant for.


Geoff

From drv.cbc.com!c9709244@cbgate.cbc.com Thu Sep 25 01:45:01 1997
        for <cowan@ccil.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:45:00 -0500 (EST)
        Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:03:41 +1000 (EST)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:03:41 +1000 (EST)
From: HACKER G N <c9709244@drv.cbc.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@scotty.sys.drv.cbc.com>
Cc: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: na`e
In-Reply-To: <0EH000EL2YVEKQ@newcastle.edu.au>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970925105836.21938A-100000@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mozilla-Status: 0015
Content-Length: 1331


On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, John Cowan wrote:
>  
> "cei" doubles up the functions of "goi" and "poi".  When applied
> to an assignable pro-bridi, it assigns it; when applied to an
> existential pro-bridi, it restricts it.  This isn't explicitly
> stated in the book because I was leery of saying too much about
> second-order quantification when my understanding of it is
> quite shaky.
> 
> But anyway, relative clauses can only be applied to sumti, and
> while "su'o bu'a" is technically a sumti, in the prenex
> (by special exception) it is functioning as a quantifier +
> pro-bridi.  So the true grouping is
> 
>         su'o (bu'a cei (na vreta)) zo'u ...
> `       For-some (relationships which are (not reclining)) ...
> 
> rather than
> 
>         (su'o bu'a) (poi na vreta) zo'u ...
>         Speaking-of-(some-things which-satisfy "bu'a")
>                 (which do not recline)

Oh! That's a real twist on what's written in the grammar, I think. I would
perhaps have been a bit more comfortable with "su'o nu bu'a", "su'o su'u
bu'a" or some other such abstraction to express a
predicate relation in a prenex, because it seems more consistent with the
grammar elsewhere, but I'm not overly fussed about it, because I don't
consider myself likely to use these kinds of constructions. 

Geoff