From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Sep 28 16:04:25 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 23:04:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 42815 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 23:04:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 23:04:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-2.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.102) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 23:04:25 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-69-42.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.69.42]) by mailbox-2.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0D01936D for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 01:04:16 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:05:53 +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: > 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": > > 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". > > 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}. > > 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. If the {e} case expands as you say, then your reasoning is right (i.e. I agree with it...). But: 1. The general rule doesn't apply when, say, {e} is within the scope of {na}. So it can't be taken for granted that it applies to the present instance. 2. For {ci roi le pavdei ku joi le reldei} and {ci roi lei re djedi}, I would like to be sure that there is some way to say that the three occasions are distributed throughout the two days, such that {ci roi le pavdei} and {ci roi lei pa djedi} would be false. If that is doable, then my reservations would be assuaged. > 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. Ah, this is good. So what do these mean? ci roi ku ca re djedi -- three occasions, each occurring over two days ca re djedi ku ci roi -- occurring on two days, thrice on each day Is that right? Remind me what is to be gained by using roi + sumti rather than roi + ku? --And.