[lojban] Re: Shakespearian word order

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

la and cusku di'e
> xorxes:
> > > > > FOOL: All thy other titles thou hast given away:
> > > > >       That thou wast born with.
> > I'd say:
> > 1)   ro lo do drata noltcita poi do se jinzi ku'o do se bejdu'a
> > 2)   ro lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au ny poi do se jinzi
> > are identical in meaning.
> 
> What does {ny} refer to in (2), exactly? I simply don't see a way for (2)
> to work.

{ny} is a variable bound by the quantifier {ro}, which quantifies over the
avatars of {lo do drata noltcita} with the restriction {poi do se jinzi}.

> > What else could the dislocated restrictive phrase do?
> 
> Partly it depends on the function of postnexes, but setting that aside,
> {ny poi do se jinzi} should refer to a subkind of whatever {ny} refers to.

Yes. And {ro} quantifies over the avatars of the subkind. 

> If {ny} refers to lo do drata noltcita, then we want to end up saying
> not {ro lo do drata noltcita} but {ro ny poi do se jinzi}.

Right. That's the only way I can interpret it:

  ro lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au ny poi do se jinzi

should be equivalent to:

  ro lo do drata noltcita poi do se jinzi zo'u ny do se bejdu'a 

{ny} and {lo do drata noltcita} just change places when we move the
postnex to the front, because we want the anaphor to appear after
its antecedent, but otherwise the expressions are equivalent.

> So what I don't get is how {ny poi do se jinzi} in the postnex manages to
> express the meaning "replace the antecedent of {ny} by {ny poi do se
> jinzi}".

Rather, it says "add restriction {poi do se jinzi} to the antecedent
of {ny}".

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com