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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> I think you've explained before how you derive a wholly defined version
> of the "imaginary journey" model from this. Maybe I can understand it
> better this time.
[...]
> Do I have you right?

Yes, I think so.

> Interaction with quantifier scope should be clear; e.g.
> {ba ku ro do facki lo du'u mi vlipa}
>    == {lo nu ro do zgana lo du'u mi vlipa cu balvi}
>    ~~ "one day, you will all see my power!"
> {ro do ba facki lo du'u mi vlipa}
>    == {ro da poi me do zo'u da ba facki lo du'u mi vlipa}
>    == {ro da poi me do zo'u lo nu da facki lo du'u mi vlipa cu balvi}
>    ~~ "each of you will one day see my power!"
>        (possibly at different times)

I think the example would work better with "pa roi ku" or "su'o roi
ku" instead of (or in addition to) "ba ku". I don't think "lo nu ro do
facki lo du'u mi vlipa" is necessarily "lo nu pa roi ro do facki lo
du'u mi vlipa".


>> > Suppose ko'a is assigned to a bunch of three lions, one of which is in
>> > my garden, one of which is in my living room, and the third of which is
>> > in Nairobi (I don't live in Nairobi).
>> >
>> > With this new setup, it's now consistent to have:
>> >
>> > xu ko'a vi le mi purdi cu cinfo .i na go'i
>
>> I'm not sure about the first one. (I will take it by "vi" you meant
>> "bu'u"="fi'o se zvati", since for me "vi"="fi'o cmalu tersei".
>
> I was aiming more for "within a small distance of". Do we have anything
> for that?

You mean "in or around my garden"? I'd say "ne'i ja ne'a lo mi purdi".

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.