From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed May 24 16:11:37 2000
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Received: (qmail 13094 invoked from network); 24 May 2000 23:11:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 May 2000 23:11:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.178) by mta1 with SMTP; 24 May 2000 23:10:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 27548 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 2000 23:10:59 -0000
Message-ID: <20000524231059.27547.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 200.42.153.20 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2000 16:10:59 PDT
X-Originating-IP: [200.42.153.20]
To: lojban@egroups.com
Subject: Two questions for the RECORD
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 16:10:59 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>


Question 1: How do pro-sumti work with respect to
quantification. For example, how do we interpret
this: {ro prenu cu prami ri}. Does it expand as:

1.1) roda poi prenu zo'u da prami da

or is it the same as {ro prenu cu prami ro prenu},
which expands as:

1.2) roda poi prami ku'o ro de poi prami zo'u da prami de

I think the answer has to be 1.1), and I think this
was discussed at some point, but I don't remember the
outcome.

Question 2: What about assignable pro-sumti?
Consider this:

ko'a goi le ci cribe cu nerkla le zdani
i ko'a viska pa kicne le ko'a ckana

What does the last sentence mean? Is it:

2.1) Each of the bears sees one pillow on its own bed.

2.2) Each of the bears sees one pillow on each of their beds.

2.3) The three bears see one pillow on their bed(s).

I think (2.3) would be the one I prefer, that goi
massify a multiple referent before the assignment.
Otherwise it seems it would be bad form to assign
multiple referents to ko'a, because as ko'a can survive
for many sentences, scoping issues can get pretty
entangled.

co'o mi'e xorxes

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com