Re: proposed quant. scope cmavo: xu'u

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

la kris cusku di'e

> It does seem kind of weird, since I
> thought you could split .e-joined things into two sentences:
>
>        ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zo'u: da batci de
>
> ought to resolve to:
>
>        ci da poi nanmu zo'u: da batci de .ije ci de poi gerku zo'u: da batci
 de
>
> Or is the .e resolution different in the prenex?

Well, you have to be careful with {e}-splitting. It can't be done
automatically. For example:

        lo nanmu cu batci le gerku e le maltu
        At least one man bites the dog and the cat.

Does not split to:

        lo nanmu cu batci le gerku ije lo nanmu cu batci le mlatu
        A man bites the dog and a man bites the cat.

Because in the first case it is the same man, and in the second not
necessarily. The correct splitting would be

        lo nanmu goi ko'a batci le gerku ije ko'a batci le mlatu

On the other hand,

        le gerku e le maltu cu batci lo nanmu

does split to:

        le gerku cu batci lo nanmu ije le mlatu cu batci lo nanmu

{e} is much like {ro}, and {a} is much like {su'o}. The scopes have
to be taken into account when making expansions.

> If you agreed that ".e" causes problems in the prenex as I described, maybe
> "zo'unai" could serve that function?

Maybe, but I don't like it much, because of the way it is read by the
parser. {e} groups the two sumti together. {zo'u} splits them appart.
I think a connective is the right thing to get parallel scope. If not
{e} then one of the non-logical ones.

> >I'm happy with {ci nanmu cu batci ri} (themselves) and {ci nanmu cu batci
> >ro ri} (themselves and each other).
>
> I don't understand how that works.  With "ri" alone, why do we know they are
> each biting only themselves and not each other -- or is it merely a
> convenient convention?

It would be a convention, but I think it is the most coherent one.
(I don't say it is THE convention because I have no idea what is
or whether there is an official position on this matter.)

> And you seemed to imply in our lojban conversation
> about cteki that "vo'a" in the same place has a different effect.  mi cfipu.

I don't remember using {vo'a} at all. (I doubt that I would because
I don't like the VOhAs.) I did say something like {lei prenu cu turni ri},
but since {lei prenu} is one entity, there can be no doubt here, {ri}
has to be the same one.

Jorge