[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
> >
> > Yes. I'm assuming {ny} is under the scope of {ro}, and bound by it.
> 
> OK. We see here the pitfalls of glorky anaphora...

I think there's no glorking for that bit. I take every bare anaphor 
to be bound by the quantifier of its antecedent if it falls 
under its scope. To get the unbound meaning I'd have to use an
explicit {tu'oboi ny} here. The only glorking is in identifying 
{ro lo do drata noltcita} as the antecedent, but bare {lo do drata 
noltcita} is not a candidate. I think.

> > > 1.  lo broda cu brode zo'au by poi brodi
> > > 2.  lo borda poi brodi cu brode
> > > 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.
> 
> CLL gives an example like (3) ("ko'a zo'u broda" or suchlike) as an
> example of prenexation used for topicalization, with the prenexee binding
> an implicit zo'e. You don't even need binding -- cf.

I definitely support using prenexation (and maybe postnexation too) for 
topicalization, I do it often in my lojban. I meant it seemed pointless 
to topicalize something to make a comment about a superkind of the topic,
but I see now that it can in fact make sense. Even if you do interpret it 
this way though, the sense is not changed that much: "as for the other
titles thou wast born with, thou hast given away all thy other titles".

>   "My mood today is such that the sun seems to be shining with especial
>    brilliance"
> 
> -- where "my mood today" is a topic but not an argument.

Certainly.
 
mu'o mi'e xorxes


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