RE: 3 loafs

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@pmail.net>]

> From: "Robert A. McIvor" <rmcivor@macsrule.com>
>
> >> And Rosta wrote:
> >>> From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
> >>>
> >>> Robert A. McIvor scripsit:
> >>>
> >>> > >> In Loglan, I would have said 'da [pa] gentci ne rebfoa' He/she/it
> >>> > >> again-ate a bread-loaf, which put the stress on the repetition of
> >>> > >> the eating act rather than the characteristics of the loaf.
> >>> > >
> >>> Ah, I see the problem.  You mean to say that he is eating a loaf (the
> >>> same or another) on a *different* occasion, whereas I understood you to
> >>> mean that he is eating a loaf on *multiple* occasions, in which case I
> >>> think it is clear that the same loaf is meant.
> >>
> >>As for the actual Lojban ex given above, my interpretation is John's.
> >>
> >	Maybe I confused things a bit by the E translation 'again-ate'.
> >However, as a matter of principle, I consider a predicate to indicate an
> >operation which takes arguments.  I see no reason why the arguments should
> >be considered to be linked unless the arguments themselves specify a
> >linkage.  To me, gentci just indicated two eating operations  linked as a
> >time-series.  Since the bread arguments were both indefinite, in my
> >opinion there is no reason to consider them linked.  However, if, as in E,
> >one wished definitely to indicate that the same loaf was not eaten twice,
> >one could say ne norsao rebfoa (a not-same bread-form).  Does Lojban
> >interpret predicates differently?

It is simply a question of scope. Is "again-eat da" the same as
       "Ex, again it is the case that x is eaten"
or as
       "again it is the case that Ex, x is eaten"
? For Lojban, it is the former, because the scope of scope-sensitive elements
expressed by the predicate is within the scope of scope-sensitive elements
expressed by the arguments.
Conversely, and for the same reason, "again, he bread-ate" would mean
"again it is the case that Ex, bread, he ate x".

As far as I can see, the grammar has to take a position on the relative
scope of scope-sensitive elements expressed by the predicate, and the
Lojban position seems to me the most appropriate. I don't fully understand
your rationale for opting for a different interpretation.

--And.