WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed

posts: 1912


pc:
> Pragmatics time again. While a quantifier does not bind — provide reference
> directly - outside its scope, it does set up a contextual bias toward taking
> open references in the neighborhood to be (in) the group established by the
> quantifier (or other device for that matter cf. the {le}s that derive from
> earlier {lo}s).

No doubt that's how things work in natlangs. It's harder to
see how it works in Lojban where pronouns tend to be more rigid in
how they get their referents.

> But in the case of {noi}, why again do we think it is
> outside the scope of the quantified expression to which it is attached?

We know what happens when there is no quantifier:

lo nu ti noi broda cu brode cu rinka ko'a

That does not say that lo nu ti broda is part of the cause.
But then we are faced with something like:

lo nu ci broda noi brode cu brodi cu rinka ko'a

and if we don't want the brodeing to be part of the cause
then we need to take the noi clause outside the scope
of the quantifier.

BTW, in another post yesterday I expanded:

ci prenu noi melbi cu klama

as:

ci da poi prenu zo'u ge da melbi gi da klama

which is not quite right. An expansion like that would
work for {su'oci}, but exact quantifiers are more complex
beasts. The expansion for {ci} would be something like:

ci prenu cu klama ije ro da poi prenu gi'e klama cu melbi

mu'o mi'e xorxes



mu'o mi'e xorxes




___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush