From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Wed Aug 08 09:13:59 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 8 Aug 2001 16:13:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 19333 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2001 16:10:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Aug 2001 16:10:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Aug 2001 16:10:07 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.232]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010808161005.DOTB6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:10:05 +0100 To: Subject: RE: partial-bridi anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] no'a Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:09:12 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Jorge: > la and cusku di'e > > > > > > 1- la djan ba klama lo zarci pu le nu la meris no'a > > > > > > > > > > A) John will go to some store before Mary goes to it. > > > > > B) John will go to some store before Mary goes to one. > > > > > > > >C) John will go to some store before Mary is x1 of the next > > > > outer bridi. > > > > > > Whatever does that mean? > > > >Just that. "John will go to some store before Mary is x1 of > >the bridi 'John will go [...]'". The sense is clear but > >nonsensical. > > I'm not sure I see the point of such weirdness. Won't {le no'a} > still get you what you want under a more standard (go'i-like) > definition of {no'a}? Because it rescues you from problems involving self-referentiality and problems concerning what {no'a be X} means. > > (Ex (& (store x) > > (will (before (go John, > > x), > > (go Mary, > > x))))) > > > > It's not at all difficult to do each of the readings unambiguously > in Lojban. For example: > > A') la djan ba klama su'o da poi zarci pu le nu la meris no'a da (doesn't pu modify zarci here; shdn't it be zarci ku'o pu?) > > B') la djan ba klama su'o da poi zarci pu le nu la meris no'a su'o da > > (I'm using recycled variables the way I proposed, in B'. It's a > bit longer otherwise.) I don't like the recycling. But I don't like repeating poi zarci either. > But my question was not how to say A and B, but rather what 1 means. That was your original question. But the message you quote was in answer to a later question where you asked what were the bridi involved. But anyway, to answer your question, da poi zarci zo'u la djan ba klama da pu le nu la meris no'a (da) should definitely mean (A). But I can't decide about the version with {klama lo zarci}. -- Well, it's the next day now & I've slept on it, & I think the best rule is that anaphors -- ri, vo'a, LE go'i, LE no'a -- repeat the entire antecedent sumti, including the quantifier when the sumti is quantified in situ. {ku goi} would do the same. So the version with {klama lo zarci} shd mean "Mary goes to one". To get the "Mary goes to it" version, special adjustments need to be made, to move the quantifier out of the sumti. The rationale for this would be that allowing in-sumti quantifiers is a convenient deviation from isomorphism (or do I mean homomorphism? -- I forget the difference) between syntax and semantics. --And. --And.