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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-10-29 at 17:56 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>> The difference between jo'u and joi is parallel to whatever difference
>> there is between lo and loi.
>
> Which you're still expecting to be something-or-other to do with
> distributivity?

I don't have much use for loi/joi, but yes, my current understanding
is that they force non-distributivity. though I think that's somewhat
lame.

>> > 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.
>
> OK. If it does end up being that no coherent lo/loi-like distinction
> between jo'u and joi can be found, though, I do think this would be
> a good use for {jo'u}.

I think any coherent lo-loi distinction should be transferrable to jo'u-joi.

I'm guessing your example was meant to be {broda ko'a jo'u ko'e su'o
brode} == {broda fi su'o brode fe ko'a .e ko'e}, because what you had
changes the places that the arguments fill, and also "ro" and ".e" are
commutative anyway.

That would suggest that "lo" be equivalent to "ro lo" but with
innermost scope, assuming it pairs with "jo'u".

>> 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.
>
> Well, she should have been clearer.
>
> We need her to be able to be clearer.

She could have said: ".ei no roi ku su'o da poi cinfo zo'u do klama lo
jibni be da".

(I first wrote "ko" instead of "do", but that suggests the scope of
the imperative is within the scope of "no roi", which seems wrong.)

In any case the moral of the story was that there are sound
evolutionary reasons for the kind approach, since obviously we are all
descended from Cless and he is the one that got the right meaning. :)

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.