[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>*Subject*: Re: More about scopes*From*: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU*Date*: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:42:46 EDT

And: > Obviously I see your qualms, but (a) the logic of the current system > supports my interpretation, and (b) occasionally one might actually > want to have a koha with reference varying in this way. Ok. Now we need a default quantifier for {ko'a}. I propose {ro}, because I see {ko'a} as a kind of {le}, just like {da} is a kind of {lo}. For example: le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe goi ko'a i ko'a blanu Each of the three men carries one box, boxes which will be referred to as "ko'a". Each of the boxes is blue. (And not: At least one of the boxes is blue. Of course, I could say {su'o ko'a blanu} for that.) > > A related question: > > le ci nanmu cu prami ri > > Does that mean "each of the three men loves each of the three men", or > > "each of the three men loves himself"? What about with {vo'a} instead > > of {ri}? > This is an excellent question. I see no basis for {ri} and {voha} > behaving differently. Well, {ri} goes back to a sumti, while {vo'a} goes to a sumti place (which could even be empty). They could in principle act differently. > I note with satisfaction that Livagian uses different anaphors for the What is Livagian? I never heard of it before. > two meanings. In Livagian they have the following logical form: > > [1] Ea, a is a set, 3 is cardinality of a; Ab, if b is a member of > a then b is a man; **Ac, if c is a member of a then** b loves c. > "Each of the three men loves each of the same three men" > > [2] Ea, a is a set, 3 is cardinality of a; Ab, if b is a member of > a then b is a man, and b loves **b**. > "Each of the three men loves himself" > > The bit of logical form provided by each of the contrasting Livagian > anaphors is shown flanked by **. (For expository purposes I've > ignored the specificity of {le} in your example.) > [I mention this not to advertise Livagian, but to - I hope - clarify > the nature of the problem.] > > I think it desirable to have both types of anaphor. But we only have one, which one is it? Jorge

- Prev by Date:
**Re: More about scopes** - Next by Date:
**Re: More about scopes** - Prev by thread:
**Re: More about scopes** - Next by thread:
**Re: More about scopes** - Index(es):