Re: respectives

["Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

la lojbab cusku di'e

> >> 1a The people each read **a different** book.
> >        le prenu cu tcidu lo frica cukta
> >No problem here, because the scope of "lo" is within that of "le".  You
> >cannot however rephrase as:
> >        lo frica cukta cu se tcidu le prenu
> >which does not mean:  A different book is read by each of the people.
>
> I resist this kind of scoping difference, though I have not analyzed it.

How could I hope to argue against that? :)

> Not trying to override the refgram, or even what "needs to be", I
> presume in general that all sumti are equal scope regardless of order
> (possibly excepting this when there are explicit external quantifiers).

What do you mean here by "equal scope"? Are you saying that in

        le prenu cu tcidu lo cukta
        Each person read at least one book.

there is no subordination of "lo cukta" to "le prenu"? So they all
must have read at least one book in common?

Actually, it seems to me that what you mean is that there
is no way of telling how each of the people relate to each of the
books from that phrase, i.e. you understand it the way I understand
this other one:

        lei prenu cu tcidu loi cukta
        The people read some books.

Here I don't specify any relationship between each individual person
and any book. All I say is that the group of people I have in mind
is in relationship "tcidu" with some books.

> If I want to specify scope, I put it in the prenex.  This may make me
> "wrong", but I'll probably need to be corrected a LOT of times before I
> accept it, because it does not fit my internalization of the language.

I don't really know what is your internalization of the language,
so to argue against or to agree with it I will have to wait to see
examples of use. If "le prenu cu tcidu lo cukta" and "lo cukta cu
se tcidu le prenu" mean the same to you (when talking of more than
one prenu) then we are not speaking the same Lojban. To me the first
means that the people read at least one book each, the second that
there is at least one book read commonly by all. If we disagree on
this really very basic sentence, I don't think there is much point in
discussing more subtle cases, is there?

> Furthermore, many BAIs and even more so discursives were added to the
> language specifically to allow a short cut avoidance of what logical
> precision might require.  Especially this tricky scope stuff.

Could you give a list of the many BAIs that can be used to avoid logical
precision, please? The only one I was aware of that was proposed to do
so is pa'a.

As an aside, for example in the case of ki'u with negation, the
refgrammar goes to great lengths to explain how logic is preserved
in spite of the direct English translation suggesting otherwise.
"mi na klama le zarci ki'u le nu mi xagji" does not mean "I don't
go to the market because I'm hungry", but rather "it is not the case
that (I go to the market because I'm hungry)".

So what is the list of the many BAIs that do break the usual rules?

> >> Mark Vines responds:
> >>
> >> 2a  le vrici mamta be la xorxes. je la .and.
> >>
> >I don't think that works.  In 2a you're describing each of the things as
> >being vrici mamta of both Jorge and And.
>
>   The "je" might
> cause problems, though, since it implies expansibility into two
> sentences.

So you agree with me that it should be grammatical, though? ui!!!

> >> > > 2a the mothers of Xorxe and And
> >>
> >> le mamta be la xorxes .e la .and
> >
> >I think that has to be a mother of both.  It does not expand to le mamta
> >be la xorxes ku e le mamta be la and.
>
> Why not?

Because {le mamta be la xorxes e la and} has to be some {da} such that
{da mamta la xorxes e la and}, i.e {da mamta la xorxes ije da mamta la and},
the same da mamtaing both of them. This is not equivalent to {le mamta
be la xorxes be'o e le mamta be la and}, which allows for two different
mamta.

> The plausible alternative is that it expands to "le mamta be la xorxes
> je mamta be la .and.",

It doesn't exactly expand to that because that's a tanru, but that is
approximately the meaning, I agree.

> since the "le" is attached to a unitary
> description.

What unitary description? It could be many of them, as long as each
is mamta of both.

> But I suspect that we never have ruled between the two,
> and indeed could not find an example of be with connection in a quick
> search of the refgram.

The refgram is extremely careful with these things. You can hardly
find any example where "le" refers to more than one thing, or where "lo"
is used in sentences with more than one sumti. Most examples in the
refgram are trivial with regard to scope issues.

co'o mi'e xorxes