* Tuesday, 2014-11-11 at 19:01 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> > > > ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani
> > > > -> ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu .i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu
> > > > gi ko'i fasnu
> > > > .i ko'i nu ko'o balvi ko'e .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci
> > > > .i ko'o nu mi klama lo zdani
Trying again to make sense of this, I came to this as an english
translation:
"Every time I'm hungry, (going marketwards and going home following
going marketwards) occurs".
How did I do?
> > But however you want to describe it, there's an element of co-ordination
> > between the {ko'e fasnu} and the {ko'o balvi ko'e} which I believe is
> > a crucial part of the semantics of the original sentence, but which
> > seems to get lost in your kind-based rewriting.
>
> Isn't that provided by "ca ro nu mi xagji" though? The claim is that at
> each of these times not just that both ko'e fasnu and lo nu ko'o balvi ko'e
> cu fasnu, but lo nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'o balvi ko'e cu fasnu.
What's the difference, at a particular time (etc), between {lo nu ge
broda gi brode cu fasnu} and {ge broda gi brode}?
Or indeed, between {lo nu broda cu fasnu} and {broda}?
(Assuming in both cases that {lo} gets the kind.)
(These aren't intended as rhetorical questions; I have little idea what
the semantics of event-kinds should be.)
> > ca ro nu mi xagji kei lo nu mi klama lo zarci kei fasnu je se balvi
> > be lo nu mi klama lo zdani
> >
> > I'm thinking that using {je} there be different from using {gi'e} - if
> > ko'a is the kind of broda(x), then
> > {ko'a brodi je brodu} ~~ {su'o da poi broda cu brodi je brodu}
> > {ko'a brodi gi'e brodu} ~~ {su'o da poi broda cu brodi .i je su'o da poi
> > broda cu brodu}
> > (where I don't know exactly what the relation between left and right is,
> > but probably at least right implies left).
>
> And pressumably the kind of broda(x) cannot instantiate broda(x), otherwise
> "ko'a brodi gi'e brodu" would directly imply "su'o da poi broda cu brodi
> gi'e brodu", so the left and the right correspond to two different
> universes of discourse.
Yes, that's always a problem.
> I think "je" even in tanru has been taken to be ordinary logical
> conjunction (although it gets weird with non-unary predicates), but maybe
> tanru "jo'u" or "joi"?
I meant it as logical conjunction. The idea was to get the conjunction
inside the quantifier.
> Is "lo nu ko'a broda gi'e brode cu fasnu" equivalent to "lo nu ko'a broda
> cu fasnu ,i je lo nu ko'a brode cu fasnu", or does having the conjunction
> describing the one event have some significance? Any implicit additional
> tense info would not seem to cary from left to right:
>
> "lo nu [tense-operator-X] ko'a broda gi'e brode cu fasnu" is not
> necessarily equivalent to "lo nu [tense-operator-X] ko'a broda cu fasnu ,i
> je lo nu [tense-operator-X] ko'a brode cu fasnu".
Certainly that's right if {lo nu broda cu fasnu} is equivalent to
{broda}, and that's all I can currently think of as making sense for
fasnu and event-kinds.
> > Or how do you interpret "ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi mi ctigau"? Is there
> > > any indication that the time-slice of "mi" witnessing the first "mi"
> > > is the same time-slice of "mi" witnessing the second "mi" of "mi mi
> > > ctigau"?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're getting at. The times are (roughly) the same,
> > by the semantics of {ca}, so yes they're (roughly) the same time-slices.
> > But no extra indication of that is required. I suppose one has to use
> > that future-me can't be hungry now.
>
> But I don't see why the same argument that holds for time slices wouldn't
> hold for event instances. If you read the original sentence as allowing
> for the possibility that when I'm hungry I may go many times to the market,
> but at least one of those times has to be followed by a time of me going
> home, then I see your point, but the way I read it there's just one
> relevant instance of going to the market and then going home for each time
> I'm hungry.
I read the original sentence that way too. But I don't see how to read
your kind-based translation that way. It claims both {ko'e fasnu} and
{ko'o balvi ko'e}, wrapped inside a single event-kind. How does that
force the going to the market (i.e. instance of ko'e) in the former to
be same as the going to the market in the latter?
> I think to get your reading I would have to add an explicit "at least
> once" somewhere.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature