From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue May 08 09:34:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 8 May 2001 16:34:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 71638 invoked from network); 8 May 2001 15:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 May 2001 15:27:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 8 May 2001 15:27:50 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 8 May 2001 16:09:10 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 08 May 2001 16:29:36 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:29:12 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] imperatives & scope (was: RE: Predicate logic and childhood.) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta pc: #a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: # #> > arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:=20 #> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<=20 #> > ko broda da=20 #> >=20 #> > means=20 #> >=20 #> > I hereby command that there be some da such that do broda da=20 #> >=20 #> > and not=20 #> >=20 #> > There is some da such that I hereby command that do broda da=20 #> >=20 #> > which cannot be expressed in Lojban satisfactorily.=20 #> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>=20 #> >=20 #> > {da zo'u ko broda da} and probably {da se broda ko}. Structure words= =20 #> > aside, extending scope requires anaphora of the scope determiner (here= =20 #> > ko =3D do).=20=20=20 #>=20 #> Three responses. #>=20 #>=20 #> 1. Your proposal is counter to current convention, which is that {ko}=20 #> means "make this sentence true if {ko} were replaced by {do}".> # #well, that depends upon how you interpret "this sentence"=20=20 In the standard Lojban way, as per "jufra" and the EBNF etc. Things separated by {i}.=20 #Since a aprenex is=20 #always "to a sentence," I take short scope in front, i.e., the beginning o= f a=20 #illocutionary scope is the beginning of the shortest sentence of which the= =20 #illocutionary operator is part (with a variety of ways of expanding, of=20 #course). This is simply not correct. {viska loi nu ko citka} would be interpreted as "Be seen to eat", for example. What you describe would allow Lojban to say what it currently can't, but I do deny that it is correct Lojban (as currentlydefined). #> <2. Your proposal seems unable to cope with the contrast between (b) and #> (c): #>=20 #> a. "I command that you cause her to eat something." #> =3D"I command that you cause that there be something that she eats.= " #> b. "I command that there be something that you cause her to eat." #> c. "There is something that I command you to cause her to eat."> #>=20 #I assume that you mean these to be expansion of "Get her to eat something"= ,=20 #not literally the problems sentences.=20=20 yes #But, in any case, the various=20 #positions around gasnu should work: prenex to the whole(c), lenu ko'e citk= a=20 #da (a). b is different, not being a command to do at all, but a fiat quid = --=20 #maybe e'ocai zasti fa da poi do gasnu lenu ko'e citka da I don't agree about (b) being not a command, but anyway, yes, solutions lik= e you suggest would work ***IF THE ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE OF KO DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY HAVE SCOPE OVER THE ENTIRE (MACRO)SENTENCE***. #<> 3. There are much more common and more serious problems with the scope #> of imperative operators than ones like (a-c). Consider (d/d'): #>=20 #> d. Make a note of my telephone number. #> d'. Make a note of a telephone number of mine. #>=20 #> This means (e/e'): #>=20 #> e. For my telephone number, make it the case that you make a note of= it. #> e'. For a telephone number of mine, make it the case that you make a= =20 #> note=20 #> of it. #>=20 #> It does NOT mean (f): #>=20 #> f. Make it the case that you make a note of my telephone number. #> f'. Make it the case that you make a note of a telephone number of mi= ne. #>=20 #> -- for these would be satisfied if you wrote down any old number but the= n #> took steps to make sure that the phone company assigned this number to m= e.> #>=20 #Again, I would use prenex but I suspect that this is common enough that we= =20 #need a new convention here, as we have already in various other world=20 #shiftings, about the referent of definite descriptions therein. since tha= t=20 #problem is not completely worked out yet, ... I added the d'/e'/f' exx to show that even without definite descriptions th= e problem remains. --And.