[lojban] Re: Shakespearian word order

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

xorxes:
> 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}.

So a less glorky equivalent would be

ro da poi -avatar lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au da poi do se
jinzi

?? -- In your version, ny is to be glorked as da.

In this case, it all begins to make sense.

> > > 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.

I think it works if ny = da, but not if ny = {lo do drata noltcita}.
On the latter reading, it is equivalent to:

lo do drata noltcita ku goi ko'a zo'u ko'a poi do se jinzi ku'o goi
ko'e zo'u ro **ko'a** do se bejdu'a

rather than

lo do drata noltcita ku goi ko'a zo'u ko'a poi do se jinzi ku'o goi
ko'e zo'u ro **ko'e** do se bejdu'a

> > 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}".

Would you say that

1.  lo broda cu brode zo'au by poi brodi

is equivalent to

2.  lo borda poi brodi cu brode

rather than to

3.  lo broda poi brodi zo'u lo broda cu brode

? I feel that 1=3, not 2.

--And.