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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> In english, "I am actually hitting donkeys" seems to clearly mean that
> there are actual donkeys (probably at least two) which you're in the
> process of beating up; Carlson and followers would have this meaning
> arrived to by going via the kind 'donkeys'.
>
> I'm asking whether you would analyse {mi ca ca'a darxi lo xasli}
> similarly, when {lo xasli} is given referent the kind 'donkeys' (which
> would be a perverse thing to do when you could directly give it
> witness donkeys as referents, but would be less perverse in the case of
> {mi ca ca'a na darxi lo xasli}.

So you would analyse "I am actually hitting donkeys" differently from
"I am actually hitting donkeys, even though they will soon be
extinct", right?

I think it is less perverse to analyse them both the same way.


> Anyway, the question was a formal one: in {broda ro da lo brode}, can
> the referents of {lo brode} vary with da? Have you a definite opinion
> either way?

I would tentatively say no, if there is no explicit unbound variable
in an expression, we shouldn't assume an implicit one. But I'm willing
to be convinced otherwise.

>> > > > {su'o da poi te cange cu ponse lo xasli noi da darxi .i ri se
>> > > > kecti mi}
>
> But {lo xasli} doesn't actually have a constant referent in this
> sentence, does it? If it does, what is it?

The referent you don't want to exist. Suppose you add "and which will
soon be extinct" to the nonrestrictive relative clause. Would that
change the referent?

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.