From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jul 28 17:13:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 29 Jul 2001 00:13:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 85976 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2001 00:13:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Jul 2001 00:13:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.135) by mta3 with SMTP; 29 Jul 2001 00:13:30 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:13:30 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.57 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 00:13:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.57] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 00:13:30 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2001 00:13:30.0665 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C252990:01C117C3] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >I must have misunderstood. I glorked that the idea was that "ci da poi >prenu prami re da" would mean "There are exactly three people such >that each of the three loves some two of the three". You got it right. I find that it is a horrible abuse of notation, and I was just trying to find out whether it can even work logically. If {naku roda ... su'oda} ends up not equivalent to {su'oda naku ... su'oda} then I definitely don't like it. Also, I'm not sure I buy the argument that natlangs do it that way. The closest English for the above is "three people love two", which in no way requires that the two be part of the three. Similarly you can say things like "some species of elephant are native to Africa, some to Asia and none to America", where obviously the second "some" and the "none" are restricted to "species of elephant", not to the first "some species of elephant". In English you need to add an "of them" to make the second quantifier be restricted to the selection of the first. Otherwise the second quantifier is simply restricted to the same whole restriction of the first. I think that's the "natural" interpretation for Lojban too. To get the other meaning we need a way of referring collectively to several previous referents, and we need this for other (somehow related) cases, such as this: "John met Mary at the bar and then they went to the store." How do we do that "they", which refers to two sumti in two different places? We don't have any pro-sumti for that kind of thing. I ran into this problem several times in the Alice translation. The way I handled it was using {le remei}, {le cimei}, an so on. So: la djan penmi la meris le barja ibabo le remei cu klama le zarci Something similar can be done with the "three people love two of them" case: ci da poi prenu cu prami re lu'a le cimei and similarly: ci nanmu cu nerkla le barja i re le cimei cu klama le barjyjbu i pa le remei cu cpedu lo'e ladru mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp