[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Logical scope of LAhE
la .dan. cu cusku di'e
Thank you Ilmen for asking, and selpa'i for answering.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:41 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de
<mailto:seladwa@gmx.de>> wrote:
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)
This surprised me a little, and I'm happy that there has been a
consensus. What about jai?
Example: {da jai se djica mi}
Which of the following does this mean:
1) mi djica lo su'u da zo'u da co'e
2) da zo'u mi djica lo su'u da co'e
(I would expect 2.)
Yes, number 2). {jai} creates a new selbri, and {jai}-places do not
differ from any other places. Placing a bare {Q da} in any sumti place
results in them being bound in the most immediate prenex.
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}.
Good! What about the scope of pe?
{pe su'o da} being short for {poi su'o da zo'u ke'a co'e da}, we can see
that the variable belongs (is bound) "inside" the {pe}.
Btw, I forgot to comment on option 3 from Ilmen's original post:
3) Ambiguous scope.
Ambiguous scope can never be allowed in Lojban. It is never an option,
or it isn't Lojban.
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.