Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Wednesday, 2011-09-07 at 20:31 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>> - xu do klama lo zarci
[...]
>> - ro ma'a klama
>>
>> "All of us go (there)", not "each of us go [somewhere]".
>
> Oh, really? Would you actually say that {ro ma'a klama} is false were
> the destinations to be different?

I was still thinking in terms of possible answers to "xu do klama lo
zarci". In such a context, I would take the referents for "zo'e" in
"ro ma'a klama [zo'e]" to be the same as for "lo zarci".

>> "zo'e" is just like "mi", "do", "ti", "ta", "tu"... only much more
>> open ended as to what referents it can pick up from the context of the
>> utterance.
>
> There are scope issues, though... e.g. if you agree that {zo'e se fetsi
> ro da poi mamta} is true (which maybe, given your examples above, you
> actually don't), the zo'e has to scope inside the da.

I agree that (without any more context to suggest otherwise) it's
true, but you won't like my reason why, because it gives a generic
referent to "zo'e".

> It sounds like you might be giving it longest scope rather than
> shortest, which gets around that kind of issue... though it still has to
> scope inside the da in {ro da zo'u broda zo'e noi brode da}.

I don't give it any kind of scope, since I don't think constants have
scope. But if you do need to force constants to be quantified, then
yes, I would have to favour longest over shortest.

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.