From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Nov 06 09:32:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Nov 2002 17:32:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 71782 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 17:32:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2002 17:32:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 17:32:38 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189U2g-0006V6-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 09:32:38 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 189U2b-0006Uo-00; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 09:32:33 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 06 Nov 2002 09:32:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 189U2X-0006Uf-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 09:32:29 -0800 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:32:29 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: What the heck is this crap? Message-ID: <20021106173229.GZ22843@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20021105222732.GH22843@digitalkingdom.org> <20021106012321.GA54404@allusion.net> <20021106014101.GU22843@digitalkingdom.org> <20021106033442.GA55657@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021106033442.GA55657@allusion.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2455 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 09:34:42PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:41:01PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > [...] > > > > ca ro djedi lo nanmu cu cinba la meris > > > > lo nanmu ca ro djedi cu cinba la meris > [...] > > > > ca le nu broda kei lo nanmu cu cinba la meris > > > > lo nanmu ca le nu broda kei cu cinba la meris > > > [...] > > > > And pretty much everyone on jboske seems to agree with it. I > > > > don't normally read jboske, myself; xod pointed this out to me. > > > > > > Believe it or not, I agree with the jboskeists on this. > > > > For *both* of them, or just tho one with ca ro? > > When we say le broda, if we're only talking about only one broda this > quantifier stuff can be ignored (if the inner quantifier is pa, the > outer ro will mean 1). If talking about more however, the meaning > will change when you move quantifiers across it. AndR said something > to this effect in another branch of the thread. I'm sorry, I simply have no interest in speaking that language, and do not intend to. 'That language' being one in which I have to keep quantifier scope in mind when talking about *non-veridical* objects. Just FYI for when we're talking. > For "le broda", the book never (to my knowledge) sets it equivalent > to anything, so we can't do that 'trick'. I think it's clear that > its (outer) quantifiers scope in the same manner though. If it doesn't involve 'da', I don't see that its quantifier scope is relevant. But then, I obviously need to read chapter 16 again. > > > pe'i this is all book lojban, though perhaps slightly hard to grok > > > from the pages. > > > > "Slightly hard" is a massive understatement. > > > > This means that FA and SE can both change the actual meaning of > > sentences. > > > > This is not explicitely stated anywhere, except maybe briefly in > > Chapter 16, whereas it is apparently something that needs to be kept > > in mind at all times. > > > > I repeat my request for an errata. > > I agree-sorta; I think the introductory lessons for lojban should > include an explaination of quantifier scope (perhaps I'll write some > learning foo which explains quantifier scope and such) and that this > stuff should've been clearer in the book. > > Specifically, as you mention, in the sections on FA and SE the book > very clearly tries to make it sound like there is no change other than > order. This is technically true, because order is the reason the > quantifier scopes change, but it definitely can be misleading. Yeah. No kidding. 8) -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ http://www.lojban.org/ la lojban. jai curmi roda .einai to ku'i so'ada mukti le nu co'a darlu le'o -- RLP I'm a *male* Robin.