* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 14:35 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > Hmm. I wonder if I now finally understand part of xorlo: would you say
> > that {lo broda} is equivalent, under this side-clause interpretation of
> > {noi} you've just set out, to {le broda noi broda}?
>
> I can't think of any reason why not, but then I'm not completely
> satisfied that I understand "le".
Ah! Maybe this is progress! For my personal understanding of xorlo, that
is.
{le} to me seems pretty clear: {le broda} refers, wherever it appears,
to some individuals which I have in mind or would have in mind
if I thought about it (to steal pycyn's phrase), and which I hope you
will be able to glork from a mixture of context and them being described
as brodaing.
Whether I actually believe them to broda is beside the point; presumably
I do expect that you believe them to broda, or that you expect me to
expect you to believe them to broda, or etc.
Since there's a single intended referent-bunch, {le broda} is invariant
under passing it through a negation.
Obviously it isn't wholly immune to scope, because of the {ro da le
broda be da} issue.
I don't see why it should be even when the description doesn't
explicitly mention bound variables; e.g. why {ro verba cu prami le
mamta} shouldn't be a reasonable abbreviation of {ro verba cu prami le
mamta be ri}, or why in {pu je ba ku mi'o jinga fi le bradi} we
should have {le bradi} getting the same referents both times.
xorlo seems to declare that it is constant in this way - unless I'm
misunderstanding again? (Just being hopeful...)
Anyway, {lo broda} just adds to {le broda} the side-claim that the
referents *actually* broda, rather than merely that I expect you to
think that they do (or otherwise understand me when I describe them as
brodaing). OK!
> > I don't know about {lo}, but presumably {le broda ku voi brode} is
> > equivalent to {le broda je brode}.
>
> Let's see.
>
> Assuming
>
> (1) le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda
I wouldn't want to take that too literally... using {le broda} doesn't
merely claim that I'm describing the referents to you as brodaing, it
actually *does* describe them as brodaing.
> (2) ko'a voi broda = ko'a noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda
>
> Then we have:
>
> (3) le broda ku voi brode = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda zi'e
> noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka brode
>
> which I'm happy to reduce to:
>
> (4) le broda ku voi brode = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda .e lo ka brode
>
> I'm not so sure about the move to:
>
> (5) le broda ku voi brode = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda gi'e brode
>
> and then to:
>
> (6) le broda ku voi brode = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda je brode
>
> which would give us:
>
> (7) le broda ku voi brode = le broda je brode
>
> The move from (4) to (5) is the one I find most suspect. It has to do
> with the semantics of "skicu", and of course also definitions (1) and
> (2) in terms of "skicu" may or may not be right.
Yes, I agree that (4)->(5) is dodgy. But I don't see any corresponding
dodginess in {le broda ku voi brode} -> {le broda je brode}.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpz8wV1HyK9k.pgp
Description: PGP signature