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

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

But that involves different modalities, which may put different constraints on 
{zo'e} among other things (something on the "kind" end of the range, say).



----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, October 16, 2011 6:52:59 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural 
variable

* Sunday, 2011-10-16 at 18:41 -0400 - Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>:

> On Oct 16, 2011 6:23 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}
> >    == {zo'e rozgu gi'e xunre}
> >    == {zo'e xunre gi'e rozgu}
> >    == {zo'e noi xunre cu rozgu}
> >    == {lo xunre cu rozgu}
>
> What's wrong with that?  The rose is a red thing.  The red thing is a rose.
> I don't see what the problem is

Those two sentences aren't generally considered equivalent in english.

Moreover, xorxes would give "roses are red" and "red things are roses"
as possible translations. Those are even more clearly non-equivalent.

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.