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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:26:21 +0000

la and cusku di'e

>You seem to be repeating what you originally said, rather than
>responding to my point, which is that {na brode ko'a e ko'e}
>does not expand to {na brode ko'a i je na brode ko'e}, and
>therefore it cannot be taken for granted that
>{broda <quantifier + tag> ko'a e ko'e}
>should always expand as
>{broda <quantifier + tag> ko'a i je broda <quantifier + tag> ko'e}

You're right. Jordan does accept this expansion, but he doesn't
accept that it is equivalent to the {ro} case, so I got mixed up
with the argument I was having with him.

The quantifier inside the tag is not quantifying the tag. The tag
is a single tag, essentially a selbri to its sumti (but not to other
sumti of the main bridi). As a aselbri it can have quantified
arguments, but it cannot itself be quantified. So {paroi <sumti>},
from the point of view of this sumti, is like {ra'inrapli li pa
<sumti>}, where {ra'inrapli} has the place structure "x1 repeats
x2 times in interval x3". This {li pa} is not a quantifier. The
sumti of {paroi} sees {pa} as embedded in the selbri that the tag
represents. Other terms don't see it that way, because they are
not arguments of that selbri. (Do you agree that tags are essentially
like a selbri to its sumti?)

> > >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.
> >
> > I don't understand why you want that. If {ciroi le jeftu} is
> > true, it can also be true that {ciroi le pavdei}. Similarly for
> > {ciroi lei ze djedi}, and {ciroi lei re djedi}.
>
>Is this {le pa jeftu}, you mean?

Yes.

>I'm not disputing that {ci roi le pa jeftu} means what you
>say it does. But I was thinking that (on the scope that you
>argue against), {ci roi le ze djedi} means that each of the
>occasions happens on each ot the days, which is a potentially
>useful meaning.

I wrote {ciroi lei ze djedi}. I'm lost now. I don't understand
how one occasion can happen on each of seven days. Wouldn't
that make it seven occasions? It can last for seven days, but
that's a different thing, to be covered with {ze'a}.

>Given that we can say what we want using ze'a and roiku, I don't
>suppose it matters all that much which reading is given to
>roi+sumti. It should be whichever is the more convenient, I guess.

Certainly the more convenient one is the one that allows us to say
"x times per minute/hour/day/etc." directly. But I also think that
it is the only truly sensible one, because of how the relationship
between tag and sumti works.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com