From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Aug 09 18:12:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 10 Aug 2001 01:12:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 96621 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 01:12:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2001 01:12:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 01:12:51 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.88.74]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010810011249.QVWN710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:12:49 +0100 To: Subject: RE: partial-bridi anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] no'a Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:11:55 +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 [...] > > > 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. Also I partially retract my original objection, because I recently realized that I had been failing to think of restricted quantification as restricted. (I'd been thinking of {da poi broda} as {da noi broda}, i.e. as {da zo'u da broda}.) Realizing my error, I now think you're right to approve John's analysis. Of course, this means that da will have to be xi subscripted that much more often; either than or use your excellent {lo du} instead. > >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. Good. When we start posting Records on the Wiki we should make a note of this. > >{ku goi} would do the same. > > Not sure what that ku means there. What I was thinking was that: le broda goi ko'a = ro da po'u pa le broda ge'o goi ko'a zo'u i.e. assigns ko'a to each of le broda separately, so any single use of {ko'a} is a reference to just one of le broda, while le broda ku goi ko'a would assign ko'a to the whole group of le broda, so that a single use of ko'a would be equivalent to {ro le broda}. > >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. And what's a homomorphism, then? --And.