Indefinite descriptions shouldn't reduce to {da} constructs, I'm fairly sure; they should reduce to {lo} constructs. Regardless, beginning here:
su'o da poi prenu cu ricfu gi'e na gleki
You can indeed reduce it to what you had, but that also reduces just as well to:
su'o da poi prenu goi ko'a cu ricfu .ije ko'a na gleki
in which case the bridi with the gleki gives {na} full bridi scope. The bridi tail connectives and forethought connectives all do this, pe'i ca'e ru'e. The assignment is subtle, however, I agree; I'm thinking of it as being purely syntactic, since I don't know how to quantify a prenex over several jufra.
mu'o mi'e latros
2011/7/22 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:That in itself wouldn't be a problem. More troublesome is that "full
> {na} has full bridi scope (which is *radically* different from how natlangs,
> or at least English, work);
bridi scope" is not well defined. What would you say are the relative
scopes of "su'o", "gi'e" and "na" in:
su'o prenu cu ricfu gi'e na gleki
(I say that means "su'o da poi prenu zo'u ge da ricfu gi da na gleki"
but that puts "na" within the scope of both "su'o" and "gi'e", so no
"full bridi scope" there.)
mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.