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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> And {.ei} is affected by scope?
>
> {.ei mi klama su'o zarci} -> I have to go to a market
> {mi klama su'o zarci vau .ei} -> There's a market I have to go to
> {su'o zarci mi .ei se klama} -> There's a market I have to go to
> ?
>
> Sounds good, though I don't see immediately what the scope rules should
> be (e.g. would it make a difference in the third sentence had I written
> {su'o zarci .ei [...]}? How about {su'o zarci ku .ei [...]}? Or do these
> in any case indicate that it's the market which should be coming to
> me? And is there a subtle difference between the second and third
> sentences?).

I was thinking of the difference between:

"lo mamta cu jungau lo panzi lo du'u .ei ri na jbibi'o lo cinfo"

and

".ei lo mamta cu jungau lo panzi lo du'u ri na jbibi'o lo cinfo"

The difference you point out I would probably express as:

".ei mi klama su'o zarci" vs, "su'o da poi zarci zo'u .ei mi klama da".

I'm not quite sure about what happens when you move ".ei" into the
body of the bridi, mainly because ".ei" attaches to the preceding
word, so it's hard to justify it not having scope over the preceding
construct. (That's a problem for the "zo'u .ei" case too.)

In any case, I don't think ".ei" changes the responsible agent. ".ei"
just says what ought to happen, not who should make it happen.  The
responsible agent in a "klama" relationship is normally the x1.

>> >> 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?
>>
>> But what language do they speak? Not English, because in English we
>> can say "lions are dangerous, don't go near them".
>
> Yes, but we mean something about individual lions when we say it
> - namely that they tend to be dangerous.

That each individual lion tends to be dangerous?

If "lo cinfo cu ckape .i ko na jbibi'o ri" confuses Moople, then
"lions are dangerous, don't go near them" should confuse him just as
much, since they have the same logical structure: "ko'a broda .i ko na
brode ko'a".

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.