Subject: Re: [lojban] First cutting for a new record

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:49:34 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] scripsit:

> 1. The Book says that {vo'V} refer to the terms occupying the 
> corresponding places (a=1, e=2,...) of "the present bridi"; the cmavo list 
> says of "the main bridi of the sentence." 

The Book says that because the Book's author misunderstood the cmavo list.
The Book's author thinks the cmavo list is bogus in this particular case.
The Book's author is a mere scribe-or-Pharisee at this point.

> The {nei} and especially {no'a} forms present some problems. With {nei} 
> the question is when is 'the present bridi' there? Can one refer, in the 
> first place, to {le te nei}, before the third place --or indeed the selbri -- 
> has been uttered? Lojbab is for the negative, 

And I am for the affirmative. "nei" is in some sense always a forward
references, because one does not know its full meaning until the bridi
containing it is complete.

> On the other hand, it 
> seems odd to say that a bridi exists when there is no selbri (witness the 
> history of the terms, still found in places in the English 'explanations'). 

There is a selbri: it has not been uttered yet, but it exists (on the
standard Lojban timeless view of existence).

> With {no'a} the issue is what does it mean used as a bridi alone rather 
> than in a description.

I don't understand the problem. There are problematic sentences, yes:
la mark djuno la djan no'a means that Mark knows that John knows that Mark knows
..., but that is true for any such downshifting anaphora.

> 3. "Jack challenged Bob to a duel. They agreed to fight on Isle Duello. 

I think a termset will do here: {Jack Bob} goi ko'a challenged to a duel.

-- 
John Cowan [email-masked]
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
--Douglas Hofstadter