Subject: [lojban] Re: x1 is of type x2

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:34:53 -0500

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:41:38PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 October 2002 21:02, And Rosta wrote:
> > John loves Mary like Sue
> > = 1. John loves Mary like John loves Sue.
> > 2. John loves Mary like Sue loves Mary.
> 
> 1. la djan. prami la meris. petai la suz.

John loves the mary which is like sue (in some way).

> 2. la djan. petai la suz. prami la meris.

The John which is like sue (in some way) loves mary.

Also, however, there's no reason why
la djan. petai la suz.
should require that "la djan." is in the setai. It's strongly implied,
yes, but it could indicate
la djan. petai la suz. zi'epesetai la meris. zi'epevetai leka
la djan. prami ce'u
which is the same ambiguity anyway.

In short I don't think putting it in a relative phrase actually
reduces the ambiguity -- it just changes the implications. (namely
which thing is *probably* setai, and that you think there are many
"la djan"s (as you used a restrictive clause)).

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