From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Sep 28 10:17:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 17:17:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 81173 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 17:17:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 17:17:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 17:17:03 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17vLFt-0007oz-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:19:49 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vLEw-0007oV-00; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:18:50 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vLEt-0007oM-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 10:18:47 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8SHMvGZ042175 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:22:57 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8SHMuik042174 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:22:57 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:22:56 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: <20020928172256.GA42095@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1668 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 04:41:57PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > Here's another argument on why {paroi ro mentu} has to mean > "once per minute" and not "once in an interval that contains > every minute": >=20 > As a general rule, we want {broda ko'a e ko'e} to expand > to {broda ko'a ije broda ko'e}. I don't think we > want tags that explicitly contain quantifiers to break this > rule, so {mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei e le reldei} means > "I went to the market once on Monday and I went to the market > once on Tuesday" (or was it Sunday and Monday?), it does not mean > that I went once on the sum of Monday and Tuesday. To get that > meaning we have to say {mi klama le zarci paroi le pavdei ku joi > le reldei}, "I went once in the Monday-Tuesday period". I agree with all the above. If the monday-tuesday period was part of the same trip, I think {jo'u} might be nicer than {joi}, in that it makes it clear you went on both days and not just the two considered together (which would allow if I had only gone on monday). > If we accept that {e} must expand as usual even with quantified > tags, then the same must apply to quantified sumti, since the > quantifier {ro} corresponds closely to the connective {e} for > these purposes: {mi klama le zarci paroi ro le re djedi}, "I went > to the market once on each of the two days". To say that I went > once in the two-day period we can say {mi klama le zarci paroi lei > re djedi}, which corresponds to {le pavdei ku joi le reldei}, or > in this case we can also say {mi klama paroi le djedi be li re}. Huh? I don't see how either of the above addresses logical connectives for this. And since you're arguing against the left to right interpretation, shouldn't {paroi ro le re djedi} mean once in all of the two days? > Conclusion: the quantifier of a tagged sumti always has scope over > the quantifier within its tag, even though the latter appears first > in the expression. Otherwise, these tags would have perverse and > unwanted effects on logical connectives. Where's the perverse effects? *boggle* > A different issue altogether is the interaction of quantified > tags with other than its own sumti. In this case we can have: > {mi klama paroiku la paris e la romas}. This expands to > {paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas} > "Exactly once, I went to Paris and I went to Rome." > I have no idea if from that we can further expand to {mi klama > paroiku la paris ije mi klama paroiku la romas}, "I went to Paris > exactly once and I went to Rome exactly once", I think we shouldn't. > Depending on how this goes, then tags will or will not have scope > over quantifiers of following sumti other than its own. I think you have the expansion wrong (I have no idea why you moved paroiku into the prenex. This was recently discussed in another thread: the only thing which exports to the prenex is naku). It actually expands to: mi klama paroiku la paris .ije mi klama paroiku la romas. I went to paris exactly once; I went to rome exactly once. Which is exactly what you would expect from a logical connective. mu'o --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9leVwDrrilS51AZ8RAgpCAJoCI5soQfB2q/lP3VnV8x1yW03F6QCfchyS RrU/v3IYaKrmcxNW1aq5kxg= =rR7R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --J2SCkAp4GZ/dPZZf--