[lojban] Scope of ko

[Rob Speer]

It seems like the "personal pro-sumti" checkpoint of the BPFK should be
fairly easy to complete, with just one exception: ko.

I remember some disagreement about the scope of ko, and I'm not sure it
was ever resolved. Does ko cross ije-connectives? If so, how do you
connect a non-imperative statement to an imperative one?

As an example of where the scope of ko really matters, compare these two
sentences:

1. Don't sleep with her just because you want to.
2. Don't sleep with her, because you'll catch an STD.

They require different scopes of a command. How would each one be
expressed?
--
Rob Speer

[Pierre Abbat]

1. ko na gletu ko'a mu'ipo'o lenu do djica
2. ko gletu ko'a, mu'i lonu do cinbi'abi'o da'i kei, naku

They require different scopes of negation. You're not commanding him not to
want to; nor are you commanding him to not catch an STD. In the first
sentence you're commanding him to make "sleep with her just because you want
to" false; in the second, you're commanding him to make "sleep with her"
false, and the motive applies to the negated command.

phma
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lojban-un...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Jorge Llamb�as]

--- Pierre Abbat <ph...@webjockey.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 April 2004 00:34, Rob Speer wrote:
> >
> > As an example of where the scope of ko really matters, compare these two
> > sentences:
> >
> > 1. Don't sleep with her just because you want to.
> > 2. Don't sleep with her, because you'll catch an STD.
>

> 1. ko na gletu ko'a mu'ipo'o lenu do djica
> 2. ko gletu ko'a, mu'i lonu do cinbi'abi'o da'i kei, naku

I agree with 1., but not with 2. Moving naku around does not
really change much here because all terms are singular.
To get the intended meaning of 2 we have to put the reason
in a separate bridi. The meaning of 2 really is:

Don't sleep with her, because [if you do, then] you'll
catch an STD.

So perhaps something like:

ko na gletu ko'a imu'ibo [romu'ei lo nu ja'a go'i kei] do cinbi'abi'o

But I agree that this is more a matter of the scope of
{na} vs. {mu'i}, rahter than the scope of {ko}. We have:

1. DO: NOT(BECAUSE(you sleep with her,you want to))
2. DO: BECAUSE(NOT(you sleep with her),you avoid catching an STD)

In both cases the command has widest scope. This can be seen from
the corresponding indicative phrases:

1. He doesn't sleep with her just because he wants to.
2. He doesn't sleep with her, because [if he does, then] he'll catch an STD.

1. ko'e na gletu ko'a mu'i po'o lo nu ko'e djica
2. ko'e na gletu ko'a imu'ibo [romu'ei lo nu ja'a go'i kei] ko'e cinbi'abi'o

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/

[Jorge Llamb�as]

--- Jorge Llamb�as <jjllamb...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
> --- Pierre Abbat <ph...@webjockey.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 April 2004 00:34, Rob Speer wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. Don't sleep with her just because you want to.
> > > 2. Don't sleep with her, because you'll catch an STD.
> > 1. ko na gletu ko'a mu'ipo'o lenu do djica
> > 2. ko gletu ko'a, mu'i lonu do cinbi'abi'o da'i kei, naku
>
> I agree with 1., but not with 2. Moving naku around does not
> really change much here because all terms are singular.

After some thought, I now think 2. is correct too. {mu'iku naku}
is different from {naku mu'iku} and that is precisely the difference
between the sentences (leaving aside the issue that "because you'll
catch an STD" stands for "because [if you do, then] you'll catch
an STD).

[And Rosta]

Rob:

(2) can best be done by using {di'u} as an argument of "because".

Any solution based on having "because" scope over imperativity
would be good only if it generalized to other illocutionary
words, which are in UI.

--And.