Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like

[maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com>]

2011/11/20 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:02 PM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't it make the most
>> sense to simply understand x1 as the relevant sumti? In other words
>>
>> (1) {x1 ka'e [selbri] x2 x3 [...]} would be a transformation of:
>>
>> (2) {x1 kakne lo nu ce'u [selbri] x2 x3 [...]}, and vice versa.
>
> But then how would you understand:
>
> (3) ka'e ku ge ko'a broda gi ko'e brode
>
> I understand it as "cumki fa lo nu ge ko'a broda gi ko'e brode".
> Presumably you would understand it as "ge ko'a kakne lo nu broda gi
> ko'e kakne lo nu brode", yes?
>
> And what about:
>
> (4) ka'e ku ge no da broda gi no de brode
>
> For me it's "cumki fa lo nu ge no da broda gi no de brode" and for you
> it would be "ge no da kakne lo nu broda gi no de kakne lo nu brode"?
>
> So "ka'e", despite all appearances to the contrary, just jumps inside
> the scope of any bridi operator in sight?
>
This is a good example, and yes those understandings would probably
have to follow from a {kakne}-reading, which casts some doubt on it.


> What about:
>
> (5) "ka'e ku ko'a na broda"
>
Assuming I understand the standard rules correctly (tell me if I am
wrong), and extending them by positing the putative
{kakne}-transformation rule I offered earlier:

(5a) na ku ka'e ku zo'u ko'a broda
(5b) na ku zo'u ka'e ku zo'u ko'a broda
(5c) na ku zo'u ko'a kakne lo nu broda
(5d) ko'a na kakne lo nu broda

or,

(5d') na ku zo'u ko'a ka'e broda
(5e') ko'a na ka'e broda

which could have been gotten more directly by recognizing that {na}
and {ko'a} can float anywhere. However,

(7) ka'e ku ko'a na ku broda

(7a) ka'e ku zo'u na ku zo'u ko'a broda
(7b) ko'a kakne lo nu na ku zo'u broda
(7c) ko'a kakne lo nu na broda

Going backwards here, we have to be careful:

(7d) ko'a ka'e ku na ku broda
NOT (7d') ko'a ka'e na broda

No problem I can see there other than {na} acting uncooperatively as
usual.  Where there seems to be a real problem is

(8) ka'e ku ro da broda

= ka'e ku zo'u ro da zo'u da broda
NOT= da kakne lo nu ro da zo'u broda

which is partially salvageable via incomplete prenex format, but only partially:

= ka'e ku zo'u ro da broda
?= ro da kakne lo nu broda
?= ro da ka'e broda

which will have a different interpretation if the relative scope of
{ka'e} and x1 is meaningful. I suspect the only solution is not to
allow {ka'e} to have scope over a quantified x1 in the first place.
Ultimately, nothing like "it is innately capable that all men swim"
makes semantic sense given the {kakne}-reading, so it probably doesn't
need to be encoded.

> or:
>
> (6) ka'e ku ge nai ko'a broda gi nai ko'e brode
>
That's another good example that I am not going to try to parse, but I
think what all this stuff shows is simply that there is an inadvertent
mismatch between the {kakne}-reading of {ka'e} and the grammar of
CAhA, which of course militates against the {kakne}-reading.  On the
other hand, what it doesn't show is that {ka'e} was originally meant
or is currently used or prescribed to express the meaning of {cumki},
rather than meaning of {kakne}.

> I don't understand why, when the syntax provides such simple answers,
> people want to complicate interpretations so much.
>
I don't want to complicate anything, but at least for now I want the
Lojban that I learn to be the Lojban that is actually used and not my
own private version.

> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
mu'o mi'e .maik.

-- 
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.