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

["John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

One problem with Lojban is that quantifier scope need not correspond to sentences (in some sense of that word -- certainly not bridi). So the floating 'da' is likely picked up already by the earlier quantifier  (the anaphora helps this view).  On the other hand, there are no unquantified variables in Lojban, so the sentence never would not make sense, just not the sense wanted.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 15, 2011, at 11:50, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

> * 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

-- 
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.