* Sunday, 2014-10-05 at 15:03 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > So am I interpreting you correctly as suggesting that when we have
> > a claim involving an unbound variable, e.g. that generated by {da poi
> > broda zi'e noi brode}, we should deal with the unbound variable not by
> > universally quantifying over brodaers but rather by replacing the
> > variable with a constant whose referents are the brodaers?
>
> I'm not adamant, but yes, I think it would have to be equivalent to:
>
> da poi broda zi'e goi ko'a noi brode
I would have ko'a binding to the variable there, so I agree with that
much!
> > If so, how about something like
> > {su'oi tadni poi sruri su'o dinju zi'e noi darlu simxu}
> > , in a context where there are many buildings being surrounded by
> > various (possibly intersecting) groups of students?
> >
> > Would you have the side-claim being that all the students involved in
> > surrounding any building argue, or only that each group of students
> > which surrounds a building argues? The latter seems more natural to me.
>
> I think the most natural is for the side-claim in:
>
> su'oi tadni poi sruri su'o dinju zi'e noi darlu simxu cu cladu
>
> to be:
>
> lo su'oi tadni poi sruri su'o dinju gi'e cladu cu darlu simxu
>
> but the problem with that is that it only works with some quantifiers. It
> won't work with "no", for example.
No, I don't see that a general rule can come out of that.
> What value does "ko'a" get in "su'oi tadni poi sruri su'o dinju zi'e goi
> ko'a"? Or for that matter in "su'oi tadni goi ko'a", or in "no tadni goi
> ko'a"? I think that's the value that the noi-clause should be about.
Well... in all cases, I just have ko'a binding to the variable, so that
doesn't help at all!
(so I have e.g. {ro broda goi ko'a brode ko'a} ->
{ro da poi broda cu brode da}, and {ro broda goi ko'a du .i ko'a du}
being an error.)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature