Re: lei xau-dja-sei

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Replying to Jorge and then Trevor
> > Anyway, I'm seeking something corresponding to exactly what I
> > was after.
> I know. How about:
> le remei po'u pa fraso ku joi pa dotco
> The couple which is a french and a german.

I think the answer is that there is no general way of saying,
say, "the/some footballers who are Welsh, Scottish, Irish and
English".

> > xj>        le mamta be la xorxes a la and
> > xj> Notice that this does _not_ expand to:
> > xj>    le mamta be la xorxes ku a le mamta be la and
> > But it does expand to
> >            le ga mamta be la xorxes gi mamta be la and
> Well, it would if that were grammatical, but it isn't.

In a brief scan of my home mahoste & the www refgram I
cannot find how to do forethought sumti tail connection.
I thought GA was okay pretty well everywhere.

> > 3a   the sisters of the men   [each of the men have sisters who
are
> >                                being referred to] (same as 2c)
>        le mensi be su'o le nanmu
>        Each of those that are a sister of at least one of the men.
> Ah, I see, here we are not saying that each man _has_ a sister.
> I think a prenex is in order then:
>        ro da voi nanmu zo'u le mensi be da
>        For each man, x: Each of x's sisters.
> ("le mensi" is "ro le su'o mensi", so I am saying that there is
> at least one mensi for each da.)

Yes, that's good. I can't now remember whether that would solve
most of the problems I'd been turning over in my head. I think it
does.

> > 3b   the mothers of some men
> Same deal:
>        da poi nanmu zo'u le mamta be da
> It's not so bad. Kind of a topicalization thing, which is right,
> because you are putting emphasis on the quantifier of the modifier.

The more we use prenexes the better: it might help to make lojban
writers think carefully about the meaning of what they're writing.

> > (Same goes for "children of xorxes and and".)
> This one's a bit tougher:
>        roda po'u lu'a la xorxes ce la and zo'u le panzi be da
>        For all x which is a member of {Jorge, And}: The children of
x.
> Can't think of a nice and short form.

It's not too bad.

> We could say:
>        la xorxes e la and zo'u le panzi be da
>        Jorge and And: Their children.
> But you would have to believe me that da runs over the prenexed
even
> when not explicitly bound to them. It would be within acceptble
> convention, though, what do you think?

I think if the refgram doesn't say one way or the other then it's
undefined in meaning.

Would

    ro da po`u la xorxes a la and zou le panzi be da

work?

> > OK, but not enough of a solution for me. Change example to:
> >
> > 3c we are french and german [but not necessarily dual
nationality]
> Yes, I see, "mi'a fraso ja dotco" does not guarantee at least one
> French and at least one German. Actually, this is not such a good
> example because "mi'a" is a mass, so "mi'a fraso je dotco" would
> probably give you what you want. Let's say you want "the people
> are French and German", and you insist on using "le prenu" rather
> than "lei prenu" for "the people". Then I don't know.

That was what set me off originally. I was trying to do an English
phrase that seemed trivially straightforward and then ran into
this snag.

> Yes, I think what's going on there is that we need external scope
for
> quantifiers of things which are sintactically internal. Maybe you
can
> do something with your old scope jumpers, which I forgot what they
> were.

I retracted them, realizing that it's not really feasible to tack
them on to the existing grammar.

From: Trevor Hill <trevor@AMON-RA.RES.CMU.EDU>
> so...  you want to say "the mothers of x and y", meaning the mother
of x
> and the mother of y???
> Since it seems to me that "le" is supposed to refer _individuals_
> satisfying the x1 place of the inner bridi, (tell me if i'm
wrong...), you
> could say:
>        le mamta be pa lu'a le'i ko'a (plus) ko'e...
> I'm not sure of the correct word to join sumti into a set like
that, so i
> stuck in the "(plus)" for that, but it seems to me that this means:
>        Those-I-describe-as mother(s)-[individually]-of
>                one member-of set (ko'a plus ko'e).......

Your "plus" is "ce", I think.

Your example could refer to just ko`a's mother, though, so it's not
a solution.

> So to say it meaning "X who are/is [individually] mother(s) of both
ko'a
> and ko'e, it seems to me you could say:
>        le mamta be ko'a joi ko'e.....

Or "e" instead of "joi". This meaning is easy to get.

---
And