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

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:05:53 +0100

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 <tag> ko'a e ko'e} to expand
> to {broda <tag> ko'a ije broda <tag> 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.