From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 10:43:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 17:43:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 61947 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 17:43:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 17:43:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.79) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 17:43:09 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.190] by n23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 17:43:09 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:43:07 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2415 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000" X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e > Looking at it purely as a grammatical problem, I don't think > you can justifiably complain about {ro da poi mentu zo'u > le plini cu mulcarna paroi da} requiring forethought. That's > an almost inevitable consequence of an unambiguous logical language. I'm not sure that the quantifier in the tag is at the same level as the quantifier of the sumti. I think it's like a quantifier embedded within a selbri (tags are basically selbri after all) and thus it has minimal scope with respect to its sumti. In other words, {paroi}, as a tag and with respect to its simti, is acting like the selbri {rapli li pa}, and so {pa} does not have scope over the sumti's quantifier. (I emphasize that this is only with respect to its sumti, not with respect to other sumti.) > Looking at it as a semantic problem, what you want to say is > "The planet revolves, and for each month during which the planet > revolves, it revolves once", and not "During every month, the planet > revolves once". (I meant "rotates", but that doesn't change the issue. Also, {mentu} is "minute": it's a planet with 144 sunsets every 24 hours, that's why the little prince, who is very fond of sunsets, likes it so much.) > Does {re roi la uenzdix klama} mean "go twice on Wednesday"? Yes. > You want {re roi ci djedi ku klama} to mean "go twice on each of 3 > days", so the going occurs over 3 days, six goings in all. Correct. > Whereas, standardly it means "go twice, each going occuring on > three days, = 6 days' worth of going, with two goings in all. No, it can't mean that. That would be {re roi lo djedi be li ci} {ci djedi} cannot be the length of one occurrence, it is three separate lengths. That's why I think the sumti's quantifier always has precedence. Otherwise you'd be talking of two occasions, each of which happens in each of three days. Compare with {ca ci djedi}: It says something happens three times, on three separate days, not that it happens simultaneously on three days: therefore {ci} has scope over {ca}. > I don't really see why the nonstandard interp is so much better > than the standard that it justifies its deviancy. I don't think the "standard" (if by that we mean that the tag's quantifier has scope over its sumti) can ever be meaningful. I don't think it is standard either, as there hasn't been any official discussion of the matter. mu'o mi'e xorxes