From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 27 16:32:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 23:32:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 5040 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 23:32:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 23:32:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-6.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.106) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 23:32:18 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-67-49.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.67.49]) by mailbox-6.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DB6299B5 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 01:32:14 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:33:51 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > 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.) If {pa roi ko'a} means, roughly, {pa roi ca ko'a} xor {ca ko'a pa roi}, doesn't that imply that the tag's relation to its own sumti is at the same level as its relation to its sister 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. (What's the difference between 'rotate' and 'revolve'? I'm sure John will enjoy telling me...) > 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.) I thought it was 'minute', but that seemed less plausible & I was too lazy to look it up. > > 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. It is three separate lengths, but they can perfectly well be contiguous -- cf "I travelled just the once, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday". So {re roi ci djedi cu klama} would mean "travel twice, each travelling occuring on each of three things of a day's duration". > 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. Okay, but I don't see the problem there with that meaning. > > 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}. That's not how I'd read {ca ci djedi} -- I'd say it says something happens on day 1, day 2 and day 3, but not that it necessarily happens three times. E.g. {mi zvati la paris ca re djedi} is sensical if I went there for a weekend trip. > > 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. Okay, but I need more persuading on this. > I don't > think it is standard either, as there hasn't been any official > discussion of the matter. Fair enough, but the default left-to-right scope rule *is* the standard rule, and unless there are good reasons to the contrary, we assume that it applies even to cases that haven't been discussed. --And.