From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Sep 10 16:23:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 10 Sep 2001 23:23:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 52917 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2001 23:17:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2001 23:17:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta2 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2001 23:17:28 -0000 Received: from user.lojban.org (dynamic231.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.231]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8ANHL145297 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:17:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010910142803.00ac1f00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:47:49 -0400 To: Subject: RE: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u In-Reply-To: References: <06cd01c12f10$100aa5c0$87b4003e@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 08:58 PM 8/27/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote: >Adam: > > la and. cusku di'e > > > > > What I like about this is firstly that it would settle what lo'e and > > > le'e mean: > > > > > > lo'e gerku (be zo'e) > > > = lo(i) ka ce'u gerku zo'e > > > = lo(i) ka gerku [under most-favoured proposals] > > > > > > le'e gerku (be zo'e) > > > = le(i) ka ce'u gerku zo'e > > > = le(i) ka gerku [under most-favoured proposals] > > > > What is the difference between "le ka gerku" and "lo ka gerku"? Is > > there more than one "ka gerku", given a certain value for all those > > "zo'e"s? > >To take the second question first, this is an important one. Given a >certain value for the zo'es, the answer is a straightforward No, but >it is not established that the sentence meaning guarantees that there >is a certain value for all those zo'es. When you quantify over >abstractions, do zo'e have scope inside or outside the abstraction >(that is, is there reference/binding fixed inside or outside the >abstraction)? My own preferred but totally unofficial rule for zo'e >is that it is a variable bound by an existential quantifier with >maximally narrow scope, so zo'e are bound within the abstraction, >and hence {ro ka broda cu pa mei}. However, if there is no specific >rule for the binding/reference-fixing of zo'e (and if its reference >can be fixed arbitrarily within the abstraction, i.e so that it can't >be exported to prenex of main bridi), then {na ku ro ka broda cu pa >mei}, because there'd be as many {ka broda} as there are construals of >the zo'e within it. IMO that would be a Bad Thing, because all >abstractions would become intolerably vague, except to glorkjunkies. Nora opines that apparently then you may be stuck with the glorkjunkie version, because when we use ka anaphorically, we appear to get the result you dislike Thus if we are discussing lo ka ce'u lebna loi titla loi cifnu we might later anaphorically refer to le ka lebna where we clearly may want the zo'es to be carried over indefinitely. on the other hand it isn't always the case that we want the zo'es to carry over. -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org