* Saturday, 2011-10-29 at 20:40 -0300 - 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.
Yes.
> >> > 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.
Correct guesses on both points, sorry!
> That would suggest that "lo" be equivalent to "ro lo" but with
> innermost scope, assuming it pairs with "jo'u".
Yes, quite.
I suppose the point is that effectively forcing *distributivity* is
possible, in this way. But I don't know what could force
non-distributivity, unless we actually have ambiguous predicates.
> >> 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".
With that being clearer just because it would be perverse to
existentially quantify over a singleton set, indicating that the
intended domain probably has multiple things which cinfo? But they could
just as well be multiple kinds of lion rather than individual lions?
I think she ought to be able to be even clearer.
> (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.
Hmm... I'd have thought that the imperativeness of {ko}, like the
questioniness of {ma} and perhaps the constancy of {lo}, beats ordinary
quantifiers. Any reason to have it otherwise?
> )
> 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. :)
Somehow this doesn't seem to be the moral I've taken. Maybe Moople had
a cousin with individuating parents?
Attachment:
pgpGOx0kzkNrJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature