Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:05:38 -0500

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 02:01:11AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> >And
> > paroi ko'a .e ko'e broda
> >as
> > paroi ko'a broda .ije paroi ko'e broda
> 
> That's what I want, so we agree about this case. But for me this
> is the exact same case as {paroi ro le re co'e cu broda}.

Interesting. Now that I fully understand your reasoning I think
it makes sense. This applies to interpetations of all the tags as
you were saying. So
sera'a ro le re gerku mi se batci
would indicate I was bitten 2 times under your interpretation, which
probably makes more sense actually, as I could just say
sera'a lei gerku mi se batci
to get the other interpretation.

Oh I just thought of another point: it seems to be more similar to
to how it would be treated in the actual sumti place of a bridi:
fi'o se srana ro le re gerku mi se batci

So I now think your interpretation is better.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the book defining tag+sumti
when the sumti has a quantifier other than a su'opa which is expected
to refer to a single thing, and since it's technically all within
one term the left-to-right stuff doesn't really address it. So
this definitely needs to be clarified.

How is this stuff usually done? If it isn't documented somewhere
as a clarification and made quasi-official (whichever way the
interpretation goes) there's no way to prevent it from being used
both ways...

-- 
Jordan DeLong - [email-masked]
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku