* Sunday, 2011-10-30 at 13:41 -0300 - 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.
OK, cool. So {.ei} just introduces a "deontic" modal - "it should be the
case that:" - and where it's placed depends on some rules which remain
to be thoroughly worked out.
Perhaps it's a shame that this is in UI rather than CAhA - but then
again, is there any reason we couldn't use {ca'a .ei ku} to place the
scope precisely?
> >> >> 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?
No... more like that when you range over situations s and entities
l such that cinfo_s(l), the proportion of pairs (s,l) (relative to some
contextually glorked measure on such pairs!) for which ckape_s(l) holds
is large...
(Though that's still too simplistic to explain "ants are dangerous",
which we might say even if we didn't consider any one ant to be
dangerous on its own...)
> 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".
Yes, but in english he'd know that "lions are dangerous" refers not to
the bunch of lions in sight (which would have to be "these lions are
dangerous") but to lions in general. It seems that the same does not go
for your {lo cinfo cu ckape}.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpEidIV1ahNJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature