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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-10-29 at 10:55 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>> But wouldn't that just shift the whole discussion from "cinfo" to "dacti"?
>
> Well, And seemed (I may well have misunderstood) willing to accept that
> lojban should be able to handle the notion of an object, just not that
> {cinfo} and similar should involve objects by default.

My point was that we would want what you would call Object as much as
what you call Lion.

>> ca lo djedi lo mamta remna cu kansa lo re panzi be ri be'o no'u la
>> .mupl. jo'u la .kles.
>
> Off-topic, but why {jo'u} rather than {joi}? Do you have a theory of
> what the difference between those words is?

jo'u -> lo [re]
joi -> loi [re]
.e -> ro [lo re]
.a -> su'o [lo re]
na.enai -> no [lo re]
na.anai -> me'i [lo re]
.onai -> pa [lo re]
.o -> (vei) no .a ro [lo re]

The difference between jo'u and joi is parallel to whatever difference
there is between lo and loi.

> I was kind of thinking that {jo'u} should work like {e}, but be
> processed only after everything else so it has "innermost scope";
> e.g. {broda ko'a jo'u ko'e ro brode} == {broda ro brode ko'a .e ko'e}.
>
> But that doesn't fit with how you just used it.

No, I don't think "jo'u" is necessarily distributive.

>> .i ca bo viska lo cinfo noi darno .i la .mupl.
>> jo'u la .kles. no roi pu viska lo cinfo gi'e djica lo nu klama ri gi'e
>> kelci .i ku'i lo mamta remna cu jungau ra lo du'u lo cinfo cu ckape .e
>> lo du'u .ei no roi klama lo jibni be ri .i ca lo bavlamdei ca lo nu lo
>> mamta remna vu crepu lo grute kei la .kles. cu viska da noi ca'o
>> jbibi'o gi'e cusku lu ju'i .mupl. lo cinfo za'u re'u zvati .i .e'u
>> mi'o cliva li'u .i ku'i la .mupl. cu cmila gi'e cusku lu doi bebna tu
>> na cinfo .i mi pu viska lo nu lo pilba'a cu jadni lo sedycra be lo
>> cinfo
>
> Yes, that's just the sad kind of error you're likely to make if you
> aren't taught about individuals... he thinks that just because {lo cinfo
> cu broda}, it follows that {ro na broda na ku cinfo} - which is valid if
> {pa da cinfo} (which his kindly mother presumably taught him), modulo
> complicated tense issues he can be forgiven for overlooking.

My theory is that when the mother told him ".ei ko no roi klama lo
jibni be ri" he was unable to identify a wide enough referent for
"ri", perhaps because he had his mind too set on mundanes.

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.