Re: More about scopes

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> > I see {ko'a} as a kind of {le}, just like {da} is a kind of {lo}.
> More precisely, {koha} is like {lei}.

I'd like that, but it's not what you are saying below. If it was like
{lei}, then it would always have a single referent. (Which might well
be an n-tuple, but it would be a single referent.)

> > 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.)
>
> I don't think this is quite right. I think that irrespective of whether
> the men carried different boxes, the following is true
>
>    le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe goi koha
>    i koha tanxe pamei

Right. Each of the boxes is a singleton box. But that makes {ko'a} like
{le}, not like {lei}. Compare:

        le ci tanxe cu pamei
        Each of the boxes is a singleton.

        lei ci tanxe cu cimei
        The three boxes (together as one entity) are a threesome.

According to you, {ko'a} is like the first one, {le ci tanxe}.

> I agr*e your {i koha blanu} entails that each box is blue. I think
> {suho koha blanu} would mean exactly the same;

Why? {su'o ko'a blanu} should mean that at least one of them is blue.
The other two might well be of different colours.

> since koha has already
> been equated with a singleton set of boxes, "at least one of the
> members of the onesome of boxes" is going to be the same as "each of
> the members of the onesome of boxes.

But {ko'a} is not one singleton.  It is three singletons.  Didn't we
agree on that?

> I reckon your example has a logical form like this:
>
>   Ev, v is a cimei, Aw if w is in v then:
>      Ex, x is a pamei, [let x be called "koha"]
>      Ay if y is in x then w carries y,
>      Az, if z is in x [i.e. koha] then z is blue

I don't think it works like that in Lojban.  Once ko'a gets assigned, it
has its referents set, but it doesn't stay within the scope of the
prenex where it was assigned.  Prenexes have scope over a single
sentence, not over following ones, unless appropriately bracketed.

I think this is the right expansion:

        le ci nanmu cu bevri pa tanxe goi ko'a
        i ko'a blanu

Expands to:

        i ci da voi nanmu pa de poi tanxe zi'e goi ko'a zo'u: da bevri de
        i ro da poi du su'oko'a zo'u: da blanu

> > What is Livagian? I never heard of it before.
> It's my own invented language [it used to be called Sta]. That's why
> I apologized for mentioning it.

Is it available for perusal?

Jorge