* Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 21:21 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 19:06 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> >> 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.
>
> "ro'oi" is not equivalent to "pi ro" though. "ro'oi" would say that
> each child uses the left hand, and the right hand, and both hands.
> "ro'oi da broda" entails "ro da broda" and "ro lo re mei cu broda" and
> "ro lo ci mei cu broda" and ... not just "pi ro lo ro mei cu broda"
> (assuming I'm getting "pi ro" right).
You're right. Is unnegated {ro'oi} ever useful?
> >> (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.
>
> Then forethought and afterthought connectives would give different
> results when quantifiers are involved.
Yes.
> I don't think that's what the designers intended when coming up with
> their rules though.
I couldn't answer to that. All I can say is that the rule I have in mind
(and code) - always export to the closest prenex - seems coherent and
simple, and as far as I can tell is in full accordance with the
baseline.
If we're to let scope jump out of geks, why not also out of NOI-clauses
or NU-clauses?
Martin
Attachment:
pgp3Z3FHuBbh2.pgp
Description: PGP signature