* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 17:40 -0600 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > * 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.
>
> It is a linguistic precondition of the collapse of parallel sentences
> marked by {je}.
I suppose it just seems odd to me that we don't allow the unfilled x2 of
mamta in {ro da poi verba cu prami le mamta} to refer to da.
> > 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!
>
> And subtracts the specificity that the in mind provision gives.
It does? How can it be non-specific and yet not involve quantification?
Attachment:
pgp4To5dghN6o.pgp
Description: PGP signature