From pycyn@aol.com Wed Jul 03 14:29:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 3 Jul 2002 21:29:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 1049 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2002 21:29:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jul 2002 21:29:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jul 2002 21:29:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.17f.a91c11b (3983) for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <17f.a91c11b.2a54c6a2@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:29:06 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_17f.a91c11b.2a54c6a2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_17f.a91c11b.2a54c6a2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/3/2002 4:10:29 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: > I'm fine with context resolving those particular issues. I don't > think _all_ the pro-sumti approaches can be realistically unambiguous > (long live ra and ru). "le remei" seems like the best solution > mentioned. The unbounded ko'a approach seems semi-dangerous to me, > as it could damage the intended unambiguity of selma'o ko'a things. > I'd rather munge "ru" than ko'a stuff (and that seems unneccesary > with just "le remei"). > Hell, they can't even be theoretically unambiguous except for a few special cases. The issue here is whether they can reasonably be expected to get the hearer to the right thing(s in this case). In this case we do not have any dyads mentioned so far (in the little context we have) nor do we have two individuals explicitly mentioned -- merely some number of dogs and some number of cats. Can the hearer -- will the hearer likely -- put all of this together to work out that the number is 1 in each case and that we are now speaking of the two referents together? How can we help him? Of course, later context may do it-- "the dog more than the cat," say, added on to the problem sentence:{ le gerku cu zmadu le mlatu le du'u ce'u tatpi}. But can we do something at the pronoun itself? I am not clear what was the matter with {ri e ra}, which is almost unambiguous -- as close as we are likely to get, anyhow -- and as short as most suggestions. --part1_17f.a91c11b.2a54c6a2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/3/2002 4:10:29 PM Central Daylight Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:


I'm fine with context resolving those particular issues.  I don't
think _all_ the pro-sumti approaches can be realistically unambiguous
(long live ra and ru).  "le remei" seems like the best solution
mentioned.  The unbounded ko'a approach seems semi-dangerous to me,
as it could damage the intended unambiguity of selma'o ko'a things.
I'd rather munge "ru" than ko'a stuff (and that seems unneccesary
with just "le remei").


Hell, they can't even be theoretically unambiguous except for a few special cases.  The issue here is whether they can reasonably be expected to get the hearer to the right thing(s in this case).  In this case we do not have any dyads mentioned so far (in the little context we have) nor do we have two individuals explicitly mentioned -- merely some number of dogs and some number of cats.  Can the hearer -- will the hearer likely -- put all of this together to work out that the number is 1 in each case and that we are now speaking of the two referents together?  How can we help him?  Of course, later context may do it-- "the dog more than the cat," say, added on to the problem sentence:{ le gerku cu zmadu le mlatu le du'u ce'u tatpi}.  But can we do something at the pronoun itself?  I am not clear what was the matter with {ri e ra}, which is almost unambiguous -- as close as we are likely to get, anyhow -- and as short as most suggestions. --part1_17f.a91c11b.2a54c6a2_boundary--