Re: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la djorden cusku di'e

> > You are not taking
> > into account that {e} has a scope of its own as well. When you
> > split {paroi ko'a e ko'e} into {paroi ko'a ije paroi ko'e}, you're
> > saying that {e} has scope over {paroi}. If {paroi} had scope over
> > {e} you could not make the expansion. Expanding {e} is equivalent
> > to exporting {ro} to the prenex.
>
> Where's the book say that?  And strictly speaking btw, since the
> claims of pavdei and reldei aren't related (e instead of jo'u) the
> scoping of quantifiers from the first one won't change the meaning.
> I don't think it makes sense to talk about quantifier scope for
> {e}, which has no quantifiers.

Whether the book says it or not in so many words, {e} does have
scope. Consider {naku ko'a e ko'e broda}. You can't expand this
to {naku ko'a broda ije naku ko'a brode}, precisely because {e}
does not have scope over {naku}. But you can expand {ko'a e ko'e
naku broda} to {ko'a naku broda ije ko'e naku broda}, because in
this case {e} does have scope over {naku}.

The relation between {e} and {ro} is not something I'm postulating
for Lojban, it is something that is there as part of their logical
meanings.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com