* Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 15:51 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * 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:
> >> > 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.
>
> What about things like: "ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da"?
Ah, you mean because {ro mamta be da} would get everything which is
motherly towards {da}, when we might want to specifically mean the
biological mother but not want to waste a couple of syllables by making
it {ro rorci mamta be da}?
I suppose that is an example. Although the complication in semantics
involved seems rather large compared to this two-syllable saving...
generally, those situations in which it's reasonable to leave the nature
of a function to pragmatics seem to coincide with those in which it's
easy to actually express it. But maybe it seems that way only because
the examples I'm considering are too simple.
> > 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?
>
> I don't really see a problem with functions. (I don't think they are
> Skolem functions though, just the usual functions of first order
> logic.)
Yes, I'm not sure why I'm still calling them Skolem functions! It's
a relic from my previous (mis)understanding that there was some actual
quantification going on somewhere, rather than pure pragmatics.
> >> 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?
>
> I find it weird that for one conjunct the second "da" is the same
> variable as the first "da", and for the other conjunct it's a
> different variable.
Yes; it's the algorithm I find natural, not the results!
> As I said, I don't think bridi connected with eks share words.
I wouldn't think of it as sharing words. They share the interpretation
of the term {da} - but that's just a variable.
> > (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.
>
> That's what makes sense to me, but of course it goes against CLL.
Really? Explicitly?
> >> 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)?
>
> That's the only way I can make sense of CLL's rule for implicit
> quantifiers jumping out of their "natural" scope.
>
> > 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.
>
> How else can you process CLL's implicit quantifiers having scope over
> several bridi?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. As I read CLL, the first {da}
in a statement/subsentence is "exported" to the prenex, creating
a generalised quantifier corresponding to the quantifier on the {da}, or
an existential quantifier if it's a bare {da}. It has scope over the
whole statement/subsentence, within the scope of any previous
quantifiers/connectives/tags.
Martin
Attachment:
pgprX03rx1HFL.pgp
Description: PGP signature