Re: [lojban] Logical scope of LAhE

[selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>]

la .ilmen. cu cusku di'e
> coi ro do
>
> I have a question.
> Let's consider the sentence {mi djica tu'a da}. Does {da} have
> scope/priority over {tu'a}, or vice versa?
> Which of the below expansions is correct?
>
> 1) {mi djica lo du'u su'o da zo'u da co'e} -- {tu'a} expands first, it
> has priority over {da}.
> 2) {su'o da zo'u mi djica lo du'u da co'e} -- {da} expands first, it has
> priority over {tu'a}.
> 3) Ambiguous scope.

Number 1) is correct - {tu'a} is opaque. (The rest of LAhE should be as 
well, though Martin seemed to be hesitant about that; see the recent-ish 
tersmu thread)

> The Lojban interpreter Tersmus opines that {da} has priority over
> {tu'a}. However, this behavior doesn't parallel the way LE is handled:
>
> {mi djica lo co'e be da} is interpreted as {mi djica lo poi'i su'o da
> zo'u ke'a da co'e}, and not as {su'o da zo'u mi djica lo poi'i ke'a da
> co'e}, so {lo} has scope/priority over {da}.

Yes, or you could say that it's the {be} that's opaque, since {broda be 
su'o da} is itself a selbri. The same happens with tenses inside 
{be}-clauses. Of course when the {da} is quantified inside a sub-bridi, 
then its scope won't come out either, which is what happens with 
{poi'i}, or {noi} in {zo'e noi}.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.