From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Aug 08 17:30:54 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 9 Aug 2001 00:30:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 11769 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2001 00:30:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 9 Aug 2001 00:30:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Aug 2001 00:30:53 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:30:53 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.46 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:30:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.46] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: partial-bridi anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] no'a Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:30:52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2001 00:30:53.0019 (UTC) FILETIME=[8BFB02B0:01C1206A] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e > > 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?) Yes! > > 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. I didn't like it much at first, but it's really growing on me. It turns out to be extremely useful. >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). Agreed. >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. I agree too. >{ku goi} would do the same. Not sure what that ku means there. >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. Sounds right. >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. An isomorphism is a one-to-one homomorphism. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp