* Tuesday, 2011-11-29 at 17:58 -0500 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> * Tuesday, 2011-11-29 at 18:37 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > And do you similarly really want {ko'a .e ko'e lo broda cu brode} to not
> > > be equivalent to {ge ko'a lo broda cu brode gi ko'e lo broda cu brode},
> >
> > I want it equivalent to "ge ko'a ko'i goi lo broda cu brode gi ko'e ko'i brode".
> >
> > The shared elements in bridi joined by ".e" or "gi'e" are not words
> > but their meanings.
> >
> > > in that the value of {lo broda} can be different in the two occurances
> > > in the latter but must be constant in the former?
> > >
> > > That complicates things significantly, you know.
> >
> > No more than for "ta" or for "la djan" or most sumti for which you
> > can't absolutely guarantee that they will end up with the same
> > referent(s) every time they are used.
>
> Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.
Actually, there's an issue here, and I'm not sure how to resolve it.
I think we agreed that
(i) if {lo broda be da} occurs not in the scope of a quantification of
{da}, the resulting existential quantifier has scope only within the
lo-phrase - i.e., referents are claimed to satisfy
EX x. broda(_,x) .
Meanwhile,
(ii) if {da} is already quantified, then {lo broda be da} is interpreted
as a skolem function.
But then how to handle
{ge broda da gi brode vau lo brodi be da} ?
The same problem occurs with {da .e ko'a lo broda be da}, if my
understanding of the interaction between sumti connectives and
quantifiers is correct.
I'm not seeing any solutions other than either (a) choosing one of (i)
and (ii), and declaring the other disallowed; (b) just accepting this as
an ugly exception to the wide "scope" of description sumti.
I don't like either of these.
Any better ideas?
Martin
Attachment:
pgphJJEy2LYtE.pgp
Description: PGP signature