Subject: Re: paroi ro mentu

From: "jjllambias2000" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:00:27 -0000

la djorden cusku di'e

> Huh? I don't see how either of the above addresses logical 
connectives
> for this. 

Connectives and quantifiers are tightly related. In fact, most
connectives have a corresponding quantifier:

ko'a e ko'e - ro le re co'e
ko'a a ko'e - su'o le re co'e
ko'a na.enai ko'e - no le re co'e
ko'a onai ko'e - pa le re co'e
ko'a na.anai ko'e - su'epa le re co'e

Those are all the symmetric logical connectives except one: 
"o". I don't think there is a quantifier for "o". A useful
one might be a quantifier meaning "all or none". Maybe we
should propose an experimental cmavo for this.

Some non-logical symmetric connectives also have corresponding 
gadri:

ko'a joi ko'e - lei re co'e
ko'a ce ko'e - le'i re co'e

One gadri that I sometimes miss is one corresponding
to {ko'a fa'u ko'e}. Non-symmetric connectives don't have
corresponding quantifiers/gadri.

Anyway, all this is to say that whatever rules apply to 
{ko'a e ko'e} should equally apply to {ro le re co'e}, since
logically they are essentially the same thing.

> 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?

That's the interpretation I'm arguing against. I'm arguing
for "once in each of the two days".

> > Otherwise, these tags would have perverse and
> > unwanted effects on logical connectives.
> 
> Where's the perverse effects? *boggle*

If {paroi ro le re djedi} means "once in the whole of the two
days", then {paroi le pavdei e le reldei} has to mean that
also, which would be perverse, because there would be no way 
to get the {e} out of the influence of {paroi}. 

> 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). 

Everything can export to the prenex. The other discussion was
about the fact that the only thing that exports to the prenex 
out of order is {na} (it always jumps to first position). 
{naku} exports in correct order, like everything else.

> 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.

I proposed both alternatives. To make it more clear:

paroiku mi klama la paris e la romas

Expands to:

paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas

The question is, does it further expand to:

paroiku mi klama la paris ije paroiku mi klama la romas 

I think it should not. In any case, whatever applies to 
{ko'a e ko'e} should apply as well to {ro le re co'e}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes