Re: TECH: man bites dog problem

mi joi la .and. cusku be di'e casnu

> > > 1. I guess {re lo mu broda} becomes {re boi mu broda}.
> > No, that's ungrammatical.  "re lo mu broda" is scoped in conjunction,
> > like "lo mu broda" (note that there must really be only five broda).
> 
> So is there a way to say it? {re me lo mu broda}, I suppose.

I think that is semantically ill-formed, as "ci lo re broda" would be.
I think you need "re me ro lo mu broda", because what you have is
"re mo su'o lo mu broda", two of the at-least-one of the five.

> > > 2. How does {re broda} vs {re lo broda} help to disambiguate
> > >    A.  re le mu nanmu cu batci ci le mu gerku
> > > we still need a ruling on whether A. is 3 dogs or 6 dogs.
> > Three dogs.  To get six dogs, use:
> >   re me le mu nanmu cu batci ci me le mu gerku
> > with the new definition of "me".  This is equivalent to:
> >   re da poi me le mu nanmu vau ci de poi me le mu gerku zo'u da batci de
> 
> Hmm. I see. Is {ci broda} equivalent to {ci me lo broda}?

Yes, or rather "ci me ro lo broda" for the same reasons as above.

> I'm still not sure how to {lo}-lessly do:
>    {mehi ro lo ci lo prenu cu klama} [under current system]
>    "There is a trio of people not all of whom are goers."
> 
> My best guess is:
> 
>    mehi ro me ci prenu cu klama
>    mehi ro me ci lo prenu cu klama

Yes, I believe either of those will work.

I now feel that the possibility of this kind of thing is the best
joint argument for TLI_style "me" (makes a predicate which is true of
each of the sumti referents) and for "PA broda" = "PA DA poi broda"
equivalence.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.