* Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 19:06 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 15:51 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >> 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 could just as well have said "ro da poi verba cu pencu lo nazbi be
> da". It didn't occur to me you would think the version with "ro" was
> more clear.
No more or less clear in that case... if we assume that there's only one
nose per da, then I don't see any difference between {lo}, {ro},
{piro}/{ro'oi}, {su'o} or {piza'u}/{su'oi} here. Arguably, {lo} is
a little misleading, as it asks you to use pragmatics when there's no
need for it - it might lead you to expect that some unusual metaphorical
meaning of nazbi was in use.
> > 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.
>
> How about a non-distributive case:
>
> ro da poi verba cu pilno lo re xance be da lo nu kavbu lo bolci
{ro da poi verba cu pilno pi ro xance be da [ku noi re mei ku'o] lo nu
kavbu lo bolci}
s/pi ro/ro'oi/ if you prefer.
Now you could say that the above could just as well be {...lo nu da
kavbu lo bolci}, and then we again have a non-constant lo-phrase. You'd
be right, and I'm not sure what quantifier to replace that {lo} with,
because I'm not sure what that {lo nu} is getting. If it's a bunch of
events, then {pi su'o}/{su'oi}; if it's a kind - I guess you'd use
{su'o}, while I would want some other quantifier for it, but I don't
know what.
But that's kind of beside the point!
> >> >> "ge da gi ko'a da broda"
> >> >>
> >> >> (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
> >
> >> > (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?
>
> Who knows? This is the closest I can find:
>
> http://dag.github.com/cll/16/10/
>
> <<
> 10.3) mi .enai do prami roda
> I, and not you, love everything.
> expands to:
> 10.4) mi prami roda .ijenai do prami roda
> I love everything, and-not, you love everything.
> and then into prenex form as:
> 10.5) roda zo'u mi prami da .ije naku zo'u do prami da
> For each thing: I love it, and it is false that you love (the same) it.
> >>
>
> 10.5 is actually ungrammatical. Presumably the second "zo'u" is
> a typo, although this section is about moving a negation to the
> prenex, so...
Quite. I've basically been ignoring this section, because it seems to be
working with a grammar in which each sentence has a prenex - which is
contrary to the official grammar, and which wouldn't fit with
specification elsewhere to the effect that {PA da} has scope over the
whole statement (when not inside a subsentence).
> Can you extract a rule from that for how connectives are supposed to
> interact with quantifiers? I don't think I can.
>
> (2)
> >> 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,
>
> But before or after dealing with "ge"? There isn't a single "the
> prenex" to consider:
>
> (prenex1) ge (prenex2) da da broda gi (prenex3) ko'a da broda
Once we've got that far, I think it's clear. The two subsentences are
handled separately - i.e. can, donkey anaphora aside, be handled in
either order - each producing a proposition. So there must be two
existential quantifiers here, one for each subsentence.
Attachment:
pgpjOAN9tgJas.pgp
Description: PGP signature