Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:33:51 +0100

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.