From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Mar 12 11:33:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 19:33:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 6306 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 19:33:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 19:33:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 19:33:10 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:06:19 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:33:20 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:33:03 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: #> exchange {Q da poi broda} and {Q broda} # #The "exchange {Q da poi broda} and {Q broda}" bit is the ugly #step for me. When {broda} is a complex bridi, this may mean #adding lots of be-bei's and possibly having to do internal #rearrangments if {ke'a} is not the first sumti. It sounds like #a simple rule, but in practice it is not. It removes the #freedom to use the {poi} form as a stylistic variant, which #is all it is in my version. The syntax of Lojban is such that every "lo" sumti can be=20 translated into a "da poi ... ke'a" sumti, but not vice versa.=20 (The main examples would be where ke'a is embedded=20 within a subordinate bridi or sumti within the relative clause.)=20 Hence, any 'exchange' between the two must be one-way, from "da poi ke'a" to "lo".=20 Hence it makes sense to see "lo" as simply an abbreviation of "da poi ke'a". Further, if Jorge and pc want to propose comprehensive systems for importing and nonimporting quantifiers, they should be done solely on the basis of "da poi ke'a", since only such a system will generalize to all cases. In this respect, Jorge's and pc's proposals are equally defective. --And