[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
xorxes:
>We're discussing whether or not {lo'e} has scope over the
>quantifiers of following terms. My position is that it
>doesn't, Jordan's position is that it does. So for example:
>
>(1) lo'e gerku cu citka lo rectu
>
>(2) lo rectu cu se citka lo'e gerku
>
>to me both of them mean "there is some meat that is eaten by
>dogs", while to Jordan (1) says that "dogs eat meat" and (2)
>is more or less nonsensical. To say "dogs eat meat" I would
>say "lo'e gerku cu citka lo'e rectu". I'm not sure how
>Jordan proposes to say "there is some meat that is eaten by
>dogs".
>
>Jordan correct me if I have misstated your position.
I haven't been reading the prior discussion in Lojban, so there
may be arguments for Jordan's view that I don't know about.
But I can't see what they could be.
If it is accepted that lo'e does singularization of lo'i, then there
is no scope effect. You just take lo'i -- which, after all, is not
scope-sensitive -- and singularize it.
In earlier discussion about lo'e, before we settled on the singularization
analysis, I had pointed out that notions of 'typical(ly)' and 'most' and
suchlike *do* involve scope issues (and perhaps use/mention issues),
which have not been resolved. But they're not relevant to lo'e, unless
the consensus about lo'e as a singularizer has evaporated. If it *has*
evaporated then the issue is not whether lo'e is sensitive to scope, but
rather the earlier issue about what it means in the first place.
--And.
When words aren't enough - Vodafone live! A new world of colour, sounds, picture messages and information on your mobile. <a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4909903;7724245;q?http://www.vodafone.co.uk/live";>
Click here</a> to find out more.