RE: partial-bridi anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] no'a

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> > A') la djan ba klama su'o da poi zarci pu le nu la meris no'a da
>
> (doesn't pu modify zarci here; shdn't it be zarci ku'o pu?)

Yes!

> > B') la djan ba klama su'o da poi zarci pu le nu la meris no'a su'o da
> >
> > (I'm using recycled variables the way I proposed, in B'. It's a
> > bit longer otherwise.)
>
> I don't like the recycling. But I don't like repeating poi zarci either.

I didn't like it much at first, but it's really growing on me.
It turns out to be extremely useful.

> But anyway, to answer your question,
>
>   da poi zarci zo'u la djan ba klama da pu le nu la meris no'a (da)
>
> should definitely mean (A).

Agreed.

> But I can't decide about the version with
> {klama lo zarci}.
>
> -- Well, it's the next day now & I've slept on it, & I think the
> best rule is that anaphors -- ri, vo'a, LE go'i, LE no'a -- repeat
> the entire antecedent sumti, including the quantifier when the sumti
> is quantified in situ.

I agree too.

> {ku goi} would do the same.

Not sure what that ku means there.

> So the version with {klama lo zarci} shd mean "Mary goes to one". To
> get the "Mary goes to it" version, special adjustments need to be
> made, to move the quantifier out of the sumti.

Sounds right.

> The rationale for
> this would be that allowing in-sumti quantifiers is a convenient
> deviation from isomorphism (or do I mean homomorphism? -- I forget
> the difference) between syntax and semantics.

An isomorphism is a one-to-one homomorphism.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp