Subject: RE: partial-bridi anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] no'a

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:30:52

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