Re: [lojban] gadri and scope

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> {ro da zo'u da brode lo broda be da bei de}
>
> should be equivalent (under xorlo) to one of
>
> (i) {ro da su'o de zo'u da brode zo'e noi broda da de}
> (ii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de zo'u broda da de}
> (iii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de su'o di broda de di}.
>
> Which?
>
> I think (ii) is the best choice, on the bases of naturality and
> usefulness.

I agree (but see comment below).

> (i) is what you'd get if you took exportation to the prenex as a golden
> rule, and (iii) is what you'd get if you considered it all-important
> that {lo} give a constant.

I'm probably the only one who talks about "lo" giving a constant, but
I never meant for that to contrast with functions. "lo" gives a
constant as opposed to a bindable variable (da poi ...). It would be
more correct to say it creates a function, albeit a constant function
in most cases. So I don't think you will have anyone arguing for
(iii).

> (ii) makes its own sense - it's what you get if you consider tanru
> units, linkargs included, to correspond directly to relative clauses.

The only issue with (ii) is that it gives the "unexpected" reading to
things like "lo mamta be ro da cu prami da".

We always have the option of using the explicit prenex forms when
there is a risk of confusion, and anyone who says "lo mamta be ro da
cu prami da" when they do mean "lo mamta be ro da cu prami su'o de" is
obviously just looking for trouble.

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.