[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.
> > > > 2)   ro lo do drata noltcita do se bejdu'a zo'au ny 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.

Yes. I'm assuming {ny} is under the scope of {ro}, and bound by it.

> 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

Right.

> 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.

The problem is that 3 seems so pointless that 2 just imposes itself.

I would say it is equivalent to

4. lo broda poi brodi zo'u by brode

so 1=2=4. 

I think we've never discussed what happens when a poi-restriction is 
added to a bound variable other than the first time it appears. What 
does {ro da poi broda zo'u da poi brode cu brodi da poi brodo} mean? 
I would say it has to mean {ro da poi broda zi'e poi brode zi'e poi 
brodi zo'u da brodi da}. If that's how it works, then the additional
restriction of ny in the postnex of the Fool's sentence is just a case 
of that, assuming ny is bound by ro as I would expect.
 
mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com