Re: RET: left factoring

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la paulos cusku di'e

> I'm facing the problem of "left factoring" sumti of the form
> "le broda brode .e le broda brodi", I mean, something like
> "le broda (brode .e brodi)".

You could use relative clauses:

        le mlatu e le gerku vu'o poi xekri
        The cat(s) and the dog(s) which are black.

You need {vu'o} so that the clause applies to the whole thing and
not just to the dogs.


la lojbab cusku di'e

> le blanu mlatu .e le crino mlatu
> le blanu je crino mlatu

That gives "each of the blue-and-green cats". You want
{le blanu ja crino mlatu} = "each of the blue-or-green cats", which
are the blue cats and the green cats, as well as those that are both
green and blue.

> le blanu mlatu .e le blanu gerku
> le blanu mlatu je gerku

Should be {le blanu mlatu ja gerku}, for the same reason. Otherwise
you get blue things that are both cats and dogs, not all the things
that are blue cats or blue dogs.

> le blanu mlatu joi gerku

I pass on this one, but I doubt that {le mlatu joi gerku} is the
same as {le mlatu ja gerku}.

> le blanu co mlatu je gerku

Again, it should be {ja}.

> le blanu poi mlatu gi'e gerku

{gi'a}

> le mlatu je gerku co blanu

{ja}

> The blue cats-and-dogs
> may indeed refer to the blue cats and the blue dogs - there is no
> necessaity that the referents be simultaneously both cats and dogs.

If that is true, then I have no idea how {je} behaves in tanru.

> There is one other connective that feels like it works for me, though the
> others may not like it so much: "ce".  If you don't get too hung up
> on "ce" implying a set, then "le blanu gerku ce mlatu" certainly
> DOES NOT imply a mixing, but rather an unordered set somehow modified.

So {ce} does not imply a set? Is {lo gerku ce mlatu} = "something
that is a cat or a dog", i.e. the same as {lo gerku ja mlatu}?
That would solve the problem of what {gerku ce mlatu} means, but
it would seem to be duplicating {gerku ja mlatu}.

> So the only question is whether someone would insist that this is implying
> color attributes to sets - I don't think so.

I wouldn't insist on that because I have no idea what {gerku ce mlatu}
means. How can you use a connective that supposedly creates a set, to
connect two brivla? What are you creating the set out of? The possible x1's
of the brivla? Any meaning you give to it would have to be a convention,
and the most reasonable would seem to be the one that you are giving it:
{broda ce brode} = {broda ja brode}, i.e the elements of the union of
{lo'i broda} and {lo'i brode}.


la djan cusku di'e

> The question of what happens to logical connectives within selbri
>
> 6)      le citka be le mlatu .e le gerku cu zvati le kumfa
>
> is still open, I think.

I don't think that there can be much doubt.

        le citka be le mlatu e le gerku

can be expressed as:

        ro da voi ke'a citka le mlatu e le gerku

which in turn is:

        ro da voi ge ke'a citka le mlatu gi ke'a citka le gerku

You cannot expand it out in the outer bridi. The connector {.e}
is connecting sumti of {citka}. It is not connecting sumti of {zvati}.

Jorge