* Saturday, 2014-05-31 at 03:19 -0700 - guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>:
> Le vendredi 30 mai 2014 12:24:38 UTC+9, Martin Bays a écrit :
> > Meanwhile, a question. Under these semantics, the second (and only the
> > second!) {zo'e} in
> > ro zo'e zo'e broda
> > depends functionally on the quantifier. But in
> > ro zo'e ro zo'e broda
> > it doesn't make sense to say that each {zo'e} depends functionally on
> > the quantifier on the other. This seems to complicate matters?
>
> I have no idea about that. Because the quantification is implicit in {zo'e}
> without outer quantifier, I have a feeling that Lojban users would be less
> attentive to the span of {zo'e} than that of {ro zo'e}. The difference of
> their usage is quite distinct, and it would not be very complicated.
Whether or not the problem would be ignored in practice, this does seem
to be an obstruction to a semantic theory of the kind proposed - one
which interprets {zo'e} in a scope-independent way without interpreting
it as a constant.
I'm not seeing a way out.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature