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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

Sounds good. Its basic place in front of the bridi it affects should
work for most cases though.

>> 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}.

I agree that plain "lions" in English doesn't work well as a
demonstrative, and that "lo cinfo" could be "lo vu cinfo" just as well
as "lo fe'e su'o roi cinfo", but surely "these lions are dangerous,
don't go near them" covers both "lions of this kind are dangerous,
don't go near them" and "these particular individual lions are
dangerous, don't go near them".

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.