* Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 12:16 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:39 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Martin Bays, On 13/10/2011 05:33:
> >
> >> (For nastier a example, consider the apparently classic {ro te cange poi
> >> ponse lo xasli cu darxi ri}... although I'd be happy simply considering
> >> this to be meaningless)
> > Do you mean the Lojban is meaningless, because of the inadequacy of the
> > rules for identifying and interpreting the antecedent of {ri} (in which case
> > I'm sure you're right)?
> I would say the Lojban is meaningful and (roughly) equivalent to
> "every farmer who is a donkey-owner is a donkey-beater".
i.e. equivalent to {ro te cange poi ponse lo xasli cu darxi lo xasli}?
Would you similarly say that {mi cpacu lo plise gi'e ba bo citka ri} is
equivalent to {mi cpacu lo plise gi'e ba bo citka lo plise}, and that
any deduction that the same apples are involved is an informal pragmatic
one?
Generally that {zo'e noi broda ku'o ri} == {zo'e noi broda ku'o zo'e noi
broda}?
Such a rule applied universally would make handling anaphora much easier
(though admittedly only by pushing more under the rug of pragmatics).
It still leaves super-donkey sentences like {su'o da poi te cange cu
ponse lo xasli noi da darxi .i ri se kecti mi}, where simply copying the
{lo} with its relative clause to the second sentence would give an
unbound {da}. Assigning no meaning to such expressions seems reasonable.
(Although of course simply adding {je} or {bo} after the {i} would give
a meaningful expression, which in this case would have something close
to the intended meaning)
> [snip]
> = ro te cange cu darxi ro xasli poi ri ponse ke'a
Nice.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpJGMegwuk0M.pgp
Description: PGP signature