[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] putative tense scope effects (was: RE:

In a message dated 11/5/2002 11:40:24 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes:
<<
The namely-rider can be used with {lo broda} as easily as
with {da poi broda}, so I don't see how that makes a
difference.

I still have trouble with this namely-rider notion though.
I don't see how it can be made to work in general. It requires
a very restricted context.

Consider this example:

  le ci nanmu cu kansa da poi ninmu zi'e goi ko'a
  Each of the three men was with a woman, ko'a.

I don't see any way to use ko'a unless we remain within
the scope of {ro le ci nanmu}. But extending the scope
of a quantifier beyond the bridi in which it appears
leads to madness, especially if ko'a is going to be a
character with continuing life in the text. So
namely-riders with su'o make sense only if the context
is such that there is nothing with scope over this

>>
Thanks. Yes, that caution needs to be added to cover the literal minded.  But those same seem to have no trouble with your {ko'a}, where the rules should be, of course, that such replacements are only permitted for (in effect) highest {su'o}.  Else you get madness, as you say (or misplaced quantifiers, which is worse).

Namely riders with {lo broda} apparently retain the implicit plurality of {lo broda}, which is why {da poi broda} is useful occasionally (even when not shoving negations around).  This can lead to some confusion down the pike, if a {ko'a} introduced for {lo broda} starts being used in a way that implies that it is singular (without retroactively declaring that {lo broda} was on this occasion).  Singularity in such cases comes by quantifying (with {pa} presumably) on {ko'a}  ({pa} is the second easiest way to get an individual in Lojban).  Matters get worse when what is {goi}d is something where the individuals are buried but may want to act independently: {loi}, for example, which requires demassing loi broda (or ko'a) to get back to individuals.  In short, anaphora keeps the character of what is anaphorized. 
I suppose the buried {ko'a} in your example could be dealt with by some rule to avoid madness -- subscripting by the various instances of  {le ci nanmu} seems as likely as any, but the assignment would be neater if made after the separation of the three cases.