From pycyn@aol.com Thu Nov 01 01:32:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Nov 2001 09:32:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 98415 invoked from network); 1 Nov 2001 09:32:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Nov 2001 09:32:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r08.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.104) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Nov 2001 09:32:06 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.de.1ccbfa18 (4555) for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2001 04:32:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 04:32:01 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_de.1ccbfa18.29127091_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_de.1ccbfa18.29127091_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/31/2001 11:00:12 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > I still think that discussion of this "peculiar rule" had best wait until the > Elephant, but in the meantime you could see whether you could > formulate rules that unambiguously determine quantifier scope for any > ... erm ... sentence (replace with better word if you can think of one). > That is, rules that could be written up in a textbook and applied to > novel sentences, ideally by something as mechanical as a computer. > Then, come the Elephant, those rules could serve as a basis for > discussion. > It's not clear to me what the Elephant will find -- except that you have said this before (as we already knew), but, as a start at such rules, see my note about what "sentence" means in Lojban a couple of days back (repeating an earlier reply to you, I think). --part1_de.1ccbfa18.29127091_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/31/2001 11:00:12 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


I still think that discussion of this "peculiar rule" had best wait until the
Elephant, but in the meantime you could see whether you could
formulate rules that unambiguously determine quantifier scope for any
... erm ... sentence (replace with better word if you can think of one).
That is, rules that could be written up in a textbook and applied to
novel sentences, ideally by something as mechanical as a computer.
Then, come the Elephant, those rules could serve as a basis for
discussion.


It's not clear to me what the Elephant will find -- except that you have said this before (as we already knew), but, as a start at such rules, see my note about what "sentence" means in Lojban a couple of days back (repeating an earlier reply to you, I think). --part1_de.1ccbfa18.29127091_boundary--