Re: Problems with Abstraction

[John Cowan <cowan@DRV.CBC.COM>]

And Rosta wrote:

> (Somebody wrote):
> > I'm new at this, but it seems to me that {mi na citka} parses as:
> >
> > (mi {<na citka> VAU})
> >
> > which means:  I don't eat.

Syntactically, "na" is part of the selbri, but semantically it has
scope over the entire sentence, for "mi na citka" means
"naku zo'u mi citka", i.e, It is false that I eat something-unspecified.

> Does it, though? I would like it to, but it doesn't on
> certain accounts of sumti underspecification.
>
> It seems to me that either constraints must be placed
> on the possible interpretation of {zo`e} (at present the
> only such constraint is that {no da} is excluded}, or
> sentences with zo`e sumti will be susceptible to a huge
> array of conflicting and sometimes contradictory interpretations.

The second seems to be the case.

> It might be countered that because {zo`e} means "the understood
> sumti", it will only be used (explicitly or implicitly) when
> the addressee is perfectly aware how zo`e is interpreted,

So the speaker must hope.

> but the fact is that in the case of implicit zo`e this is
> untrue. In fact I think implicit zo`e is interpreted either
> as {ba`e ko`a} (i.e. specific) or as {da} with implicit
> existential quantification of maximally narrow scope.

There is no difference between explicit "zo'e" and pure elision:
null is an alternative surface representation of "zo'e", less
syntactically general.

> > I think the "everything" is unspecified
> > {zo'e}.
> >
> > If you want "I eat nothing at all", which I think is logically
> > equivalent to "Everything is uneaten by me", don't you need:
> >
> > mi citka noda
> > I eat nothing
> >
> > If you want "everything is not-eaten" then maybe:
> >
> > mi na citka roda
> > I not-eat each something
> > I don't eat everything
>
> That means "not everything is eaten by me; something is not
> eaten by me".
> To say everything is uneaten: mi citka ro da na ku,
> or {ro da zo`u mi na citka da}.

All these are correct, and quite simply "mi na citka" can mean
any of them, plus it can mean "I don't eat that" (subject of discourse).
So plausible English readings are

        I don't eat that.
        I don't eat (anything).
        I don't eat something.

Context, and nothing else, tells the listener which is meant.  If
the speaker wishes to be more specific, the more verbose alternatives
"mi na citka le co'e/le go'i/le se go'i" or "mi na citka da" or
"mi naku citka da" can be used.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban