[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:28:48PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 06:46:59PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > Jordan:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 03:14:52PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > > > John:
> > > > > > And Rosta scripsit:
> > > > > > > the antecedent of {le broda} = {ro da poi cmima le'i broda} {da}
> > > > > > > or is it {ro da poi cmima le'i broda}? I don't know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't grok this one
> > > > >
> > > > > {le broda} = {ro da poi cmima le'i broda}
> > > > >
> > > > > So in {le broda ri}, is {ri}'s antecedent {da} or {ro da poi cmima
> > > > > le'i broda} (with the identity of le'i broda unchanged)?
> > > >
> > > > First off, the antecedent of "ri" can never be "da", because "da"
> > > > is in selma'o KOhA
> > > >
> > > > In "le broda ri", ri refers to the referent(s) of "le broda". "ro
> > > > da poi cmima le'i broda" has nothing to do with anything for this
> > > > purpose, and in "ro da poi cmima le'i broda ku'o ri" the ri would
> > > > refer to "le'i broda"
> > >
> > > "refers to the referent(s)" is too vague. "le broda" is shorthand
> > > for "ro da poi cmima le'i broda". So if "ri" refers to the referents
> > > of "le broda" then presumably "ri" logically translates into
> > > "da" or "ro da poi cmema X (= the aforementioned le'i broda)". But
> > > I don't know which of the two is the correct logical translation
> >
> > It refers to ro of the members of le'i broda individually. But it
> > has nothing to do with "ro da poi cmima le'i broda"
>
> What is the difference between a logical formula that refers to
> ro of the members of le'i broda individually and a logical
> formula that expresses the meaning "ro da poi cmima le'i broda"?
>
> If you asked me "What does a logical formula look like,if it
> refers to ro of the members of le'i broda individually?", I
> would answer "ro da poi cmima le'i broda", or "Ax either not x
> cmima le'i broda or ...". Do we disagree?
>
> Or put it this, way: please write "le nanmu ri prami" as a logical
> formula. Then I'll understand what you mean, hopefully.
I'm not objecting to the the equivalence of "le nanmu" and "roda
poi cmima le'i nanmu". My point is just that you can't simply
replace any occurance of "le nanmu" with "ro da poi cmima le'i
nanmu" and keep the exact same meaning, in part because of back-counting
anaphora like "ri", but also because of the effects it will have
on lerfu-sumti ("le nanmu ny. prami" is different than "ro cmima
be le'i nanmu ny. prami", where men love sets instead of themselves).
So, I'm not sure what you want for "le nanmu ri prami".
> (I hope it's clear that I'm just trying to understand you, not
> argue with you. You have a clear idea about how lojban anaphora
> works; I don't, but I want to understand your clear idea.)
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binwCFn50s_41.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped