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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-10-15 at 19:22 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
>
>> So am I taking "{lo} -> {zo'e noi}" too literally?
>
> Actually, what do you make of this argument for not taking it too
> literally:
>
> {lo rozgu cu xunre}
>    == {zo'e noi rozgu cu xunre}

Where the referent of "zo'e" is roses, yes.

>    == {zo'e rozgu gi'e xunre}
>    == {zo'e xunre gi'e rozgu}
>    == {zo'e noi xunre cu rozgu}

So far so good.

>    == {lo xunre cu rozgu}

But "zo'e noi xunre" could be changed to "lo xunre" only if the
referent of "zo'e" was red things. We already know that the referent
of zo'e in all the previous sentences was roses, so we can't transform
"zo'e noi xunre" into "lo xunre".

Alternatively: "zo'e" is not like "ko'a", something that gets a
referent and keeps it more or less indefinitely. The referent of
"zo'e" gets assigned by context, and the sentence in which it appears
is very much part of its context. "lo rozgu" == "zo'e noi rozgu" only
in the context of defining "lo rozgu". With a different context,
"zo'e" might get assigned a different referent and thus "zo'e noi
rozgu" might no longer be replaceable by "lo rozgu".

(All of which may amount to saying that "{lo} -> {zo'e noi}" should
not be taken too literally, and "{zo'e noi} -> {lo}" is even less
certain.)

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.