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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:49 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías, On 05/11/2011 01:51:
>>
>> The whole point of xorlo was to get away from the idea that "lo
>> ransedyta'u" was equivalent to "su'o ransedyta'u".
>
> They're different because su'o is scope-sensitive and lo isn't, but I see no
> difference between {PA ransedyta'u cu se dasni ro faspre} and {ro faspre cu
> dasni lo PA ransedyta'u} (where PA is {pa} in each or {su'o} in each).

For me an outer PA immediately suggests a non-singleton domain, which
"lo pa" explicitly contradicts, so getting "pa ransedyta'u cu se dasni
ro faspre" and "ro faspre cu dasni lo pa ransedyta'u" to give me the
same picture takes some effort.

If the question is "can you imagine a domain where both of these
sentences are true?", then yes, I can imagine such a domain. But is
that the domain that each of the sentences calls for on its own? No,
it's not.

> Of
> course, if you stuck {na ku} in front, they'd become nonequivalent again,
> because that would trigger the scope-sensitivity of PA.

In the domain in which both are true, sticking a "na ku" in front
would make them both false, so why would they become nonequivalent?

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.