Re: [lojban] xoi and new soi as bridi relative clause

[guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>]

2015-07-23 20:28 GMT+00:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:43 PM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ex.1)
>> ro da 
>> poi su'o de 
>> poi ro di zo'u di broda de da
>> zo'u de brode da di 
>> zo'u da brodi de di 
>>
>>
>> Do we have a rule to unify {zo'u}s nested in {poi}? Maybe the preceding
>> ones are outer, but I have never seen the rule written.
>
>
>  The second and third "di" are not bound by "ro di", they are outside its
> scope. and the third "de" is not bound by "su'o de". So filling in the
> missing implicit quantifiers, your sentence becomes:
>
> ro da 
> poi su'o de 
> poi ro di zo'u di broda de da [ku'o su'o di]
> zo'u de brode da di [ku'o su'o de su'o di]
> zo'u da brodi de di 
>
> The variable "di" is bound three times independently, and the variable "de"
> twice. 
>
> A simpler example is "ro da poi su'o de zo'u da de broda zo'u da de brode".
> That's enough to show the issue you're talking about. Linguists call these
> sentences "donkey sentences", after "Every farmer who owns a donkey beats
> it". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_sentence
>
> A variable bound within a relative clause is not available to be used
> outside the relative clause. The scope of the quantifier is limited to the
> relative clause only.
>

This understanding would solve all my problems. However, my problems come exactly from doubt on this understanding. Could you explain the reason for that a variable bound within a relative clause is not available to be used outside the relative clause in spite of they stand on the same universe of discourse on the outer bridi?

 

>> ex.2)
>> ro da 
>> poi su'o de zo'u de broda da
>> zi'e poi ro di zo'u di brode da
>> zo'u da brodi de di
>>
>> Do we have a rule to unify {zo'u}s in {poi} connected with {zi'e}? Maybe
>> we can define the preceding ones are outer. If so, ex.2 seems apparently the
>> same with
>>
>> ex.2-1)
>> ro da 
>> poi ro di zo'u di brode da
>> zi'e poi su'o de zo'u de broda da
>> zo'u da brodi de di
>>
>> but actually they will have different meaning.
>
>
> The two have the same meaning, but the final "de" and "di" are independent
> of the ones inside the relative clauses. 
>
>> ex.3)
>> su'o de zo'u ko'a poi ro da zo'u da broda ke'a cu brode de
>>
>> When {zo'u} in {poi} is covered with a constant {ko'a}, is it considered
>> outer than {su'o de} or inner?
>
>
> This one is not problematic (other than the issue of what exactly a
> restrictive clause does to a constant, but this has nothing to do with
> whether or not the restrictive clause contains bound variables). Presumably
> "ko'a poi ro da zo'u da broda ke'a" are the ko'as that everyone brodas. So
> the sentence says that there is someone that the ko'as that everyone broda,
> brode. 
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>

-- 
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.