From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Sep 28 12:19:44 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 19:19:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 44052 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 19:19:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 19:19:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 19:19:42 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17vNAa-0008C9-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:22:28 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vN9m-0008Bq-00; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:21:38 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vN9i-0008Bh-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:21:34 -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 g8SJPiGZ043600 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 14:25:44 -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 g8SJPiTm043599 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 14:25:44 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 14:25:43 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: <20020928192543.GA43408@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AqsLC8rIMeq19msA" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1675 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 --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 06:56:14PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la djorden cusku di'e > > > 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. > > > >What chapter, please? >=20 > Chapter 22. :) >=20 > You won't find an answer to every question in the book. > If you don't agree that {ko'a e ko'e} and {ro le re co'e} are > essentially the same thing from the point of view of scopes of > quantifiers and expansions, then it is probably pointless that > we keep arguing about this, as our starting points would be too > different. I see; so you're defining your own rules. I don't think it's fair game to try to use your own modifications to the language to claim that something doesn't work in the actual language. Regardless of whether or not tags are an exception to the left-to-right scope for quantifiers, this is clearly not support for either direction. ko'a .e ko'e may sometimes (or even most of the time) mean the same thing as ro le re co'e, but since it is not a specified part of the language it has no relevance to a discussion about how quantified terms and tags containing quantifiers work in the language. So I agree this is probably a pointless argument, as I am apparently discussing lojban, whereas you are discussing lojban + local hacks. > > > 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 > > > >No it doesn't. What rule are you claiming it expands to this under? >=20 > Start from {paroiku zo'u mi klama la paris e la romas} if you prefer. > The point is the same. >=20 > >The only expansion rule I know of for logical connectives clearly says > >that this becomes > > mi klama paroiku la paris .ije mi klama paroiku la romas. >=20 > What does the rule you know say for {pa le prenu cu klama la paris > e la romas}? Does it expand to: >=20 > (1) pa le prenu cu klama la paris ije pa le prenu cu klama la romas >=20 > or to: >=20 > (2) ko'a goi pa le prenu zo'u ko'a klama la paris ije ko'a klama la romas >=20 > If your answer is (2), then you agree with me, and what I'm saying > is that {paroi} should behave like {pa le prenu}. If your answer > is (1), then we disagree at such a basic level that we will never > reach an agreement about the original point we were discussing. I agree in that it has the meaning of number 2. I don't agree that it has the side effect of defining ko'a. A better way of putting it is that it first expands to pa le prenu cu klama la paris gi'e klama la romas I'm still not sure what that has to do with anything, though. --=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 --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9lgI3DrrilS51AZ8RAg5JAJ0R2a1pwEoBDVknlUKi+k5NYoAdegCfakZn V+K0HJ1Rjt59Gm0dCZ1YsTQ= =MiOx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AqsLC8rIMeq19msA--