* Thursday, 2011-12-01 at 18:53 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, there's an issue here, and I'm not sure how to resolve it.
>
> This is why I avoid relying on implicit quantifiers.
Ha, I see! I was wondering why you tend to put in the implicit {su'o}...
I fear this two-syllable saving is too valuable to just do away with,
though.
> > 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) .
>
> That's how I would deal with "lo broda be su'o da".
>
> > Meanwhile,
> > (ii) if {da} is already quantified, then {lo broda be da} is interpreted
> > as a skolem function.
>
> If da is bound by a quantifier and "lo broda be da" occurs within the
> scope of the quantifier, yes.
Thinking about it, I'm no longer so convinced that this is important.
I can't think of nor find any examples of uses of {lo broda be da} where
the itended meaning wouldn't be given more clearly by using {ro} or
{piro}/{ro'oi}, or occasionally some other quantifier.
It would certainly be conceptually neater to do away with this "Skolem
function" possibility for description sumti - declare them to be
*literally* constants, with any {da} in the description assumed not to
be bound outside, and any anaphora to exterior variables (or connected
terms) considered erroneous.
See any compelling arguments against that?
> > But then how to handle
> > {ge broda da gi brode vau lo brodi be da} ?
>
> The two options seem to be:
>
> (1) ge broda su'o da gi brode vau lo brodi be su'o de
>
> (2) su'o da zo'u ge broda da gi brode vau lo brodi be da
>
> I would personally choose (1), but I'm sure someone will want to argue for (2).
>
> > 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.
>
> Right, again it's one of:
>
> (1) su'o da .e ko'a lo broda be su'o de (cu brode)
>
> (2) su'o da zo'u da .e ko'a lo broda be da (cu brode)
>
> But I don't think you need to bring "lo" into this. We already have
> the same issue with "ge da gi ko'a da broda", which could be either
> of:
>
> (1) ge su'o da su'o de zo'u da de broda gi su'o de zo'u ko'a de broda
>
> (2) su'o da zo'u ge da da broda gi ko'a da broda
Hmm. I have it as
(3) ge su'o da zo'u da da broda gi su'o da zo'u ko'a da broda
, i.e. handling the two arms of the connective separately. This
algorithm seems most natural to me. Do you dislike this possibility for
some reason other than the {lo broda be da} issue?
(1) seems reasonable. It looks like it could be implemented (in all
cases) by having the binding of a {da} in a connectand to the bound
variable it creates survive only within the connectand. I think I might
like it.
> Is "da" just equivalent to "su'o da" in the same position where
> it first occurs (in which case the scope of "su'o" is determined by
> this position only) or is "da" bound by a quantifier with scope wide
> enough to encompass all following occurrences of "da" (in which case
> it may not be equivalent to "su'o da" in the same position)?
Interesting idea. This is how you derive (2)?
But having such a preprocessing step before scope can be decided
- meaning that in speech, the scope of a heard {da} can't be determined
until the statement is finished - strikes me as something to be avoided
if possible.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpatl_mH2xn6.pgp
Description: PGP signature