Re: di'e preti zo nu

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@intermedia.com.ar>]

la robin cusku di'e

>I was acting on the assumption that {mi nitcu lo tanxe} 
>was the equivalent of {mi nitcu lenu mi ponse lo tanxe}. 

They are different in one important respect with regards to
this discussion: the scope of the quantifier. The first one
means "there is some box x, such that I need x", the second 
one means "I need that there be some box x such that I 
have x".

In Lojban terms, {lo tanxe} is introduced in the first case
in the prenex of the bridi whose selbri is nitcu, and in the
second case in the prenex of the bridi whose selbri is 
ponse, which is within the x2 of nitcu. This makes all the 
difference.

> As someone just pointed out, this is a from of
>sumti-raising which the definition of {nitcu} seems to allow. 

Yes, {nitcu} allows both types of x2, but that doesn't 
make them have the same meaning.

> It works like this
>in every language I know (admittedly a very small subset of the set of
>languages!).

It works like that in Lojban too, when there are no quantification
conflicts. For example, there is no significant difference between
{mi nitcu lei tanxe} and {mi nitcu le nu mi ponse lei tanxe}. In this
case "for these boxes, I need them" and "I need that for these 
boxes, I have them" are practically equivalent.

>Since this is a question of clarifying the language more than of 
>changing it, we don't have to wait for the end of the baseline 
>period.  {.e'usai} Jorge, John, Bob and any other interested elders 
>shut themselves away in a virtual chateau for a while, then come 
>up with a specific and authoritative pronouncement.  

I'm not sure I quite qualify as an elder, and besides, it would
be a very long while before lojbab and I manage to reach
some form of agreement on this kind of discussions. 
Also, I much prefer reasoned debate over authoritative 
pronouncements.

>Obviously we
>can't force usage on people, but I for one would be happy to use 
>articles in any way that is suggested, so long as the suggestion 
>is clear enough.

Me too. But clarity seems to be hard to achieve on this issue.

co'o mi'e xorxes