Donkey sentence - Revision history

Loekıa: More understandable language

2024-07-07T16:54:40Z

More understandable language

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 7 July 2024
Line 29:		Line 29:

	== Dynamic approaches ==		== Dynamic approaches ==
	The entire premise for donkey pronouns being "illegal" is that a quantified variable can only bind things ~~inside its minimal parent~~ clause (in technical terms, only those things which it C-commands). But there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, "Someone left and she whistled" has a reading on which 'someone' binds 'she', even though they're in different clauses.		The entire premise for donkey pronouns being "illegal" is that a quantified variable can only bind things that are in the same clause (in technical terms, only those things which it C-commands). But there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, "Someone left and she whistled" has a reading on which 'someone' binds 'she', even though they're in different clauses.

	There are a variety of theories that allow bindings to outlive their parent clause in some way. Linguists call these theories '''dynamic'''. Some of them invent a new form of predicate logic that gives formal meaning to variables that are out of scope, while others<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575015.001.0001 Continuations and Natural Language]</ref> make the bold claim that donkey pronouns are actually ''in scope'', and find some novel way to automatically compose the right meaning. As of 2024, this last approach is the one our scientists see the most promise in.		There are a variety of theories that allow bindings to outlive their parent clause in some way. Linguists call these theories '''dynamic'''. Some of them invent a new form of predicate logic that gives formal meaning to variables that are out of scope, while others<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575015.001.0001 Continuations and Natural Language]</ref> make the bold claim that donkey pronouns are actually ''in scope'', and find some novel way to automatically compose the right meaning. As of 2024, this last approach is the one our scientists see the most promise in.

Loekıa: Talk about where we are now

2024-07-07T16:52:24Z

Talk about where we are now

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 7 July 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''donkey sentence''' is a kind of sentence that occurs in natural language, where an anaphoric pronoun (like {{t\|hó}}) refers to a quantified variable (like {{t\|sá aqshe}}) even though it is outside of that variable's scope.		A '''donkey sentence''' is a kind of sentence that occurs in natural language, where an anaphoric pronoun (like {{t\|hó}}) refers to a quantified variable (like {{t\|sá aqshe}}) even though it appears to be outside of that variable's scope.

	It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:		It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The underlined instance of variable ''d'' is illegal, because it is outside of the scope of the quantifier ∃''d''.		The underlined instance of variable ''d'' is illegal, because it is outside of the scope of the quantifier ∃''d''.

	== In Toaq ==		In 2021, Hoemaı remarked that [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608281156243487 "donkey anaphora can't really be allowed in Toaq, unless you use a separate set of pronouns or a donkey conversion mechanism. Otherwise you get ambiguity."] But some of our scientists remain unconvinced.
	~~Is the above Toaq sentence valid? What does it mean?~~

			So, is the above Toaq sentence valid? What does it mean?

			== Description approaches ==
	[[Hoemaı]] considers the case of anaphoric reference to a binding from a previous sentence not so different, and calls such pronouns ''donkey'' as well. There is then a "[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877607261684518922 crude handling of donkey pronouns]" demonstrated in [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/on-quantifiers-and-variables-grammar-update/ ''On quantifiers and variables'']:		[[Hoemaı]] considers the case of anaphoric reference to a binding from a previous sentence not so different, and calls such pronouns ''donkey'' as well. There is then a "[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877607261684518922 crude handling of donkey pronouns]" demonstrated in [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/on-quantifiers-and-variables-grammar-update/ ''On quantifiers and variables'']:

	<blockquote>{{t\|Kaqgaı jí sá guobe da. Nuo gúobe da.}}<br>[∃G : guobe(G)] kaqgaı(J,G). [∀R : raı(R) ∧ guobe(R) ∧ kaqgaı(J,R)] nuo(R).<br>“I see some cows. They (the cows) are asleep.”<br>“I see some cows. All the cows that I see are asleep.”</blockquote>		<blockquote>{{t\|Kaqgaı jí sá guobe da. Nuo gúobe da.}}<br>[∃G : guobe(G)] kaqgaı(J,G). [∀R : raı(R) ∧ guobe(R) ∧ kaqgaı(J,R)] nuo(R).<br>“I see some cows. They (the cows) are asleep.”<br>“I see some cows. All the cows that I see are asleep.”</blockquote>

	Note the "surprising ∀ quantifier" in the logical translation of the second sentence. For as long as {{t\|~~gúoso~~}} is logically out of scope, but not explicitly rebound, it refers to "'''all''' the cows that I see". [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608075857637386 “The point of it is to catch the same things as appeared in the previous sentence … instead of just any.”]		Note the "surprising ∀ quantifier" in the logical translation of the second sentence. For as long as {{t\|gúobe}} is logically out of scope, but not explicitly rebound, it refers to "'''all''' the cows that I see". [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608075857637386 “The point of it is to catch the same things as appeared in the previous sentence … instead of just any.”]

	Applying this same "crude handling" to quantifiers in subclauses, the meaning of the Toaq sentence above is: "All farmers who own some donkeys, care for all the donkeys that they own." This is often sufficient.		Applying this same "crude handling" to quantifiers in subclauses, the meaning of the Toaq sentence above is: "All farmers who own some donkeys, care for all the donkeys that they own." This is often sufficient.

	Hoemaı ~~remarked that~~ [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/~~877608281156243487~~ "~~donkey anaphora can'~~t ~~really be allowed in Toaq~~, ~~unless you use a separate set~~ of pronouns or a donkey ~~conversion mechanism~~. ~~Otherwise you get ambiguity."]~~		One idea is to explicitly anaphorically refer back to the construct containing the now-unbound variable and talk about its participants, as proposed [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877609515267260437 by Hoemaı] and [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/887013492371099688 by Hoaqgıo].

			<blockquote>"If you have a pet, then the pet in the previously mentioned state of affairs does XYZ." — Hoemaı<br>"{{t\|Tú [ë] kaqgaı jí sá kusera [nä]}} … the one who participates by seeing something, likes the thing that participates by being seen." — Hoaqgīo</blockquote>This idea and Hoemaı's "crude handling of donkey pronouns" are very similar to approaches found in the literature known as "E-type" or "D-type" analyses. The general idea is that donkey pronouns create some sort of definite description.

	~~One idea~~ is ~~to explicitly anaphorically refer back to the construct containing the now-unbound~~ variable ~~and talk about~~ its ~~participants~~, ~~as proposed [https://discord~~.~~com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877609515267260437 by Hoemaı]~~ and ~~[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/887013492371099688 by Hoaqgıo]~~.		== Dynamic approaches ==
			The entire premise for donkey pronouns being "illegal" is that a quantified variable can only bind things inside its minimal parent clause (in technical terms, only those things which it C-commands). But there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, "Someone left and she whistled" has a reading on which 'someone' binds 'she', even though they're in different clauses.

	~~<blockquote>"If you have~~ a ~~pet, then the pet~~ in ~~the previously mentioned state~~ of ~~affairs does XYZ." — Hoemaı~~<br>~~"{{t\|Tú~~ [ë] ~~kaqgaı jí sá kusera [nä]}} …~~ the one ~~who participates by seeing something, likes~~ the ~~thing that participates by being seen~~.~~" — Hoaqgīo</blockquote>~~		There are a variety of theories that allow bindings to outlive their parent clause in some way. Linguists call these theories '''dynamic'''. Some of them invent a new form of predicate logic that gives formal meaning to variables that are out of scope, while others<ref>[https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575015.001.0001 Continuations and Natural Language]</ref> make the bold claim that donkey pronouns are actually ''in scope'', and find some novel way to automatically compose the right meaning. As of 2024, this last approach is the one our scientists see the most promise in.

	== External links ==		== External links ==
	* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_sentence ''Donkey sentence'' on Wikipedia]		* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_sentence ''Donkey sentence'' on Wikipedia]
	* [https://mw.lojban.org/papri/All_about_poi_and_noi#PA_da_noi ''All about poi and noi'' on the Lojban wiki]. The ''PA da noi'' section demonstrates a similar "surprising ∀ quantifier".		* [https://mw.lojban.org/papri/All_about_poi_and_noi#PA_da_noi ''All about poi and noi'' on the Lojban wiki]. The ''PA da noi'' section demonstrates a similar "surprising ∀ quantifier".

Laqme: Delta

2024-07-07T12:06:31Z

Delta

Mỉ Mỉao ga Nhäqpy: Nonono little kids look away. You saw nothing. /j (nah i just murdered a tone marker)

2022-07-10T05:40:17Z

Nonono little kids look away. You saw nothing. /j (nah i just murdered a tone marker)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:40, 10 July 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''donkey sentence''' is a kind of sentence that occurs in natural language, where an anaphoric pronoun (like {{t\|hó}}) refers to a quantified variable (like {{t\|sa ~~ảqshē~~}}) even though it is outside of that variable's scope.		A '''donkey sentence''' is a kind of sentence that occurs in natural language, where an anaphoric pronoun (like {{t\|hó}}) refers to a quantified variable (like {{t\|sa ảqshe}}) even though it is outside of that variable's scope.

	It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:		It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:

Laqme: remove t1

2022-02-22T01:47:56Z

remove t1

Laqme: Test Example template

2021-09-15T15:14:27Z

Test Example template

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 15 September 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:
	It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:		It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:

	~~<blockquote>❓~~ {{t\|Kỉaı tu hảqpāochē bö hóa sa ảqshē cy, <u>áqshē</u> da.~~}}<br>~~“Every farmer who owns a donkey, cares for <u>it</u>.”~~</blockquote>~~		{{Example\|Kỉaı tu hảqpāochē bö hóa sa ảqshē cy, <u>áqshē</u> da.\|“Every farmer who owns a donkey, cares for <u>it</u>.”}}

	The English sentence is clearly valid English. But the straightforward translation into logic of such a sentence is not well-formed:		The English sentence is clearly valid English. But the straightforward translation into logic of such a sentence is not well-formed:

Laqme at 15:06, 14 September 2021

2021-09-14T15:06:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:06, 14 September 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:
	The English sentence is clearly valid English. But the straightforward translation into logic of such a sentence is not well-formed:		The English sentence is clearly valid English. But the straightforward translation into logic of such a sentence is not well-formed:

	<blockquote>⚠️ ∀''f'' : (Farmer(''f'') ∧ ∃''d'' [Donkey(''d'') ∧ Owns(''f'', ''d'')]) → Cares(''f'', <u>''d''</u>)].</blockquote>		<blockquote>⚠️ ∀''f'' : Farmer(''f'') ∧ ∃''d'' [Donkey(''d'') ∧ Owns(''f'', ''d'')] → Cares(''f'', <u>''d''</u>).</blockquote>

	The underlined instance of variable ''d'' is illegal, because it is outside of the scope of the quantifier ∃''d''.		The underlined instance of variable ''d'' is illegal, because it is outside of the scope of the quantifier ∃''d''.

Laqme: Created page with "A '''donkey sentence''' is a kind of sentence that occurs in natural language, where an anaphoric pronoun (like {{t|hó}}) refers to a quantified variable (like {{t|sa ảqsh..."

2021-09-14T15:04:00Z

Created page with "A '''donkey sentence''' is a kind of sentence that occurs in natural language, where an anaphoric pronoun (like {{t|hó}}) refers to a quantified variable (like {{t|sa ảqsh..."

New page

A '''donkey sentence''' is a kind of sentence that occurs in natural language, where an anaphoric pronoun (like {{t|hó}}) refers to a quantified variable (like {{t|sa ảqshē}}) even though it is outside of that variable's scope.

It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:

<blockquote>❓ {{t|Kỉaı tu hảqpāochē bö hóa sa ảqshē cy, áqshē da.}} “Every farmer who owns a donkey, cares for it.”</blockquote>

The English sentence is clearly valid English. But the straightforward translation into logic of such a sentence is not well-formed:

<blockquote>⚠️ ∀''f'' : (Farmer(''f'') ∧ ∃''d'' [Donkey(''d'') ∧ Owns(''f'', ''d'')]) → Cares(''f'', ''d'')].</blockquote>

The underlined instance of variable ''d'' is illegal, because it is outside of the scope of the quantifier ∃''d''.

== In Toaq ==
Is the above Toaq sentence valid? What does it mean?

Hoemāı considers the case of anaphoric reference to a binding from a previous sentence not so different, and calls such pronouns ''donkey'' as well. There is then a "[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877607261684518922 crude handling of donkey pronouns]" demonstrated in [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/on-quantifiers-and-variables-grammar-update/ ''On quantifiers and variables'']:

<blockquote>{{t|Kảqgāı jí sa gủosō da. Nủo gúosō da.}} [∃G : guosō(G)] kaqgāı(J,G). [∀R : raı(R) ∧ guosō(R) ∧ kaqgāı(J,R)] nuo(R). “I see some cows. They (the cows) are asleep.” “I see some cows. All the cows that I see are asleep.”</blockquote>

Note the "surprising ∀ quantifier" in the logical translation of the second sentence. For as long as {{t|gúosō}} is logically out of scope, but not explicitly rebound, it refers to "'''all''' the cows that I see". [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608075857637386 “The point of it is to catch the same things as appeared in the previous sentence … instead of just any.”]

Applying this same "crude handling" to quantifiers in subclauses, the meaning of the Toaq sentence above is: "All farmers who own some donkeys, care for all the donkeys that they own." This is often sufficient.

Hoemāı remarked that [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608281156243487 "donkey anaphora can't really be allowed in Toaq, unless you use a separate set of pronouns or a donkey conversion mechanism. Otherwise you get ambiguity."]

One idea is to explicitly anaphorically refer back to the construct containing the now-unbound variable and talk about its participants, as proposed [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877609515267260437 by Hoemāı] and [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/887013492371099688 by Hoaqgīo].

<blockquote>"If you have a pet, then the pet in the previously mentioned state of affairs does XYZ." — Hoemāı "{{t|Tu rảı güo kâqgāı jí sa kủsērā bı}} … the one who participates in the {{t|guo}} by seeing something, likes the thing that participates in the {{t|guo}} by being seen." — Hoaqgīo</blockquote>

== External links ==
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_sentence ''Donkey sentence'' on Wikipedia]
* [https://mw.lojban.org/papri/All_about_poi_and_noi#PA_da_noi ''All about poi and noi'' on the Lojban wiki]. The ''PA da noi'' section demonstrates a similar "surprising ∀ quantifier".

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 7 July 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''donkey sentence''' is a kind of sentence that occurs in natural language, where an anaphoric pronoun (like {{t\|hó}}) refers to a quantified variable (like {{t\|~~sa ảqshe~~}}) even though it is outside of that variable's scope.		A '''donkey sentence''' is a kind of sentence that occurs in natural language, where an anaphoric pronoun (like {{t\|hó}}) refers to a quantified variable (like {{t\|sá aqshe}}) even though it is outside of that variable's scope.

	It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:		It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:

	{{Example\|~~Kỉaı tu hảqpaoche bö~~ hóa ~~sa ảqshe cy~~, <u>áqshe</u> da.\|“Every farmer who owns a donkey, cares for <u>it</u>.”}}		{{Example\|Tú haqpaoche, ꝡë bo hóa sá aqshe, nä kıaı hóa <u>áqshe</u> da.\|“Every farmer who owns a donkey, cares for <u>it</u>.”}}

	The English sentence is clearly valid English. But the straightforward translation into logic of such a sentence is not well-formed:		The English sentence is clearly valid English. But the straightforward translation into logic of such a sentence is not well-formed:
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Is the above Toaq sentence valid? What does it mean?		Is the above Toaq sentence valid? What does it mean?

	Hoemaı considers the case of anaphoric reference to a binding from a previous sentence not so different, and calls such pronouns ''donkey'' as well. There is then a "[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877607261684518922 crude handling of donkey pronouns]" demonstrated in [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/on-quantifiers-and-variables-grammar-update/ ''On quantifiers and variables'']:		[[Hoemaı]] considers the case of anaphoric reference to a binding from a previous sentence not so different, and calls such pronouns ''donkey'' as well. There is then a "[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877607261684518922 crude handling of donkey pronouns]" demonstrated in [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/on-quantifiers-and-variables-grammar-update/ ''On quantifiers and variables'']:

	<blockquote>{{t\|~~Kảqgaı~~ jí ~~sa gủoso~~ da. ~~Nủo gúoso~~ da.}}<br>[∃G : ~~guoso~~(G)] kaqgaı(J,G). [∀R : raı(R) ∧ ~~guoso~~(R) ∧ kaqgaı(J,R)] nuo(R).<br>“I see some cows. They (the cows) are asleep.”<br>“I see some cows. All the cows that I see are asleep.”</blockquote>		<blockquote>{{t\|Kaqgaı jí sá guobe da. Nuo gúobe da.}}<br>[∃G : guobe(G)] kaqgaı(J,G). [∀R : raı(R) ∧ guobe(R) ∧ kaqgaı(J,R)] nuo(R).<br>“I see some cows. They (the cows) are asleep.”<br>“I see some cows. All the cows that I see are asleep.”</blockquote>

	Note the "surprising ∀ quantifier" in the logical translation of the second sentence. For as long as {{t\|gúoso}} is logically out of scope, but not explicitly rebound, it refers to "'''all''' the cows that I see". [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608075857637386 “The point of it is to catch the same things as appeared in the previous sentence … instead of just any.”]		Note the "surprising ∀ quantifier" in the logical translation of the second sentence. For as long as {{t\|gúoso}} is logically out of scope, but not explicitly rebound, it refers to "'''all''' the cows that I see". [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608075857637386 “The point of it is to catch the same things as appeared in the previous sentence … instead of just any.”]
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Applying this same "crude handling" to quantifiers in subclauses, the meaning of the Toaq sentence above is: "All farmers who own some donkeys, care for all the donkeys that they own." This is often sufficient.		Applying this same "crude handling" to quantifiers in subclauses, the meaning of the Toaq sentence above is: "All farmers who own some donkeys, care for all the donkeys that they own." This is often sufficient.

	~~Hoemāı~~ remarked that [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608281156243487 "donkey anaphora can't really be allowed in Toaq, unless you use a separate set of pronouns or a donkey conversion mechanism. Otherwise you get ambiguity."]		Hoemaı remarked that [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608281156243487 "donkey anaphora can't really be allowed in Toaq, unless you use a separate set of pronouns or a donkey conversion mechanism. Otherwise you get ambiguity."]

	One idea is to explicitly anaphorically refer back to the construct containing the now-unbound variable and talk about its participants, as proposed [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877609515267260437 by ~~Hoemāı~~] and [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/887013492371099688 by ~~Hoaqgīo~~].		One idea is to explicitly anaphorically refer back to the construct containing the now-unbound variable and talk about its participants, as proposed [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877609515267260437 by Hoemaı] and [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/887013492371099688 by Hoaqgıo].

	<blockquote>"If you have a pet, then the pet in the previously mentioned state of affairs does XYZ." — Hoemaı<br>"{{t\|~~Tu rảı güo kâqgaı~~ jí ~~sa kủsera bı~~}} … the one who participates ~~in the {{t\|guo}}~~ by seeing something, likes the thing that participates ~~in the {{t\|guo}}~~ by being seen." — Hoaqgīo</blockquote>		<blockquote>"If you have a pet, then the pet in the previously mentioned state of affairs does XYZ." — Hoemaı<br>"{{t\|Tú [ë] kaqgaı jí sá kusera [nä]}} … the one who participates by seeing something, likes the thing that participates by being seen." — Hoaqgīo</blockquote>

	== External links ==		== External links ==
	* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_sentence ''Donkey sentence'' on Wikipedia]		* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_sentence ''Donkey sentence'' on Wikipedia]
	* [https://mw.lojban.org/papri/All_about_poi_and_noi#PA_da_noi ''All about poi and noi'' on the Lojban wiki]. The ''PA da noi'' section demonstrates a similar "surprising ∀ quantifier".		* [https://mw.lojban.org/papri/All_about_poi_and_noi#PA_da_noi ''All about poi and noi'' on the Lojban wiki]. The ''PA da noi'' section demonstrates a similar "surprising ∀ quantifier".

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:47, 22 February 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:		It is named after the following prototypical example of such a sentence:

	{{Example\|Kỉaı tu ~~hảqpāochē~~ bö hóa sa ~~ảqshē~~ cy, <u>~~áqshē~~</u> da.\|“Every farmer who owns a donkey, cares for <u>it</u>.”}}		{{Example\|Kỉaı tu hảqpaoche bö hóa sa ảqshe cy, <u>áqshe</u> da.\|“Every farmer who owns a donkey, cares for <u>it</u>.”}}

	The English sentence is clearly valid English. But the straightforward translation into logic of such a sentence is not well-formed:		The English sentence is clearly valid English. But the straightforward translation into logic of such a sentence is not well-formed:
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Is the above Toaq sentence valid? What does it mean?		Is the above Toaq sentence valid? What does it mean?

	~~Hoemāı~~ considers the case of anaphoric reference to a binding from a previous sentence not so different, and calls such pronouns ''donkey'' as well. There is then a "[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877607261684518922 crude handling of donkey pronouns]" demonstrated in [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/on-quantifiers-and-variables-grammar-update/ ''On quantifiers and variables'']:		Hoemaı considers the case of anaphoric reference to a binding from a previous sentence not so different, and calls such pronouns ''donkey'' as well. There is then a "[https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877607261684518922 crude handling of donkey pronouns]" demonstrated in [https://toaqlanguage.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/on-quantifiers-and-variables-grammar-update/ ''On quantifiers and variables'']:

	<blockquote>{{t\|~~Kảqgāı~~ jí sa ~~gủosō~~ da. Nủo ~~gúosō~~ da.}}<br>[∃G : ~~guosō~~(G)] ~~kaqgāı~~(J,G). [∀R : raı(R) ∧ ~~guosō~~(R) ∧ ~~kaqgāı~~(J,R)] nuo(R).<br>“I see some cows. They (the cows) are asleep.”<br>“I see some cows. All the cows that I see are asleep.”</blockquote>		<blockquote>{{t\|Kảqgaı jí sa gủoso da. Nủo gúoso da.}}<br>[∃G : guoso(G)] kaqgaı(J,G). [∀R : raı(R) ∧ guoso(R) ∧ kaqgaı(J,R)] nuo(R).<br>“I see some cows. They (the cows) are asleep.”<br>“I see some cows. All the cows that I see are asleep.”</blockquote>

	Note the "surprising ∀ quantifier" in the logical translation of the second sentence. For as long as {{t\|~~gúosō~~}} is logically out of scope, but not explicitly rebound, it refers to "'''all''' the cows that I see". [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608075857637386 “The point of it is to catch the same things as appeared in the previous sentence … instead of just any.”]		Note the "surprising ∀ quantifier" in the logical translation of the second sentence. For as long as {{t\|gúoso}} is logically out of scope, but not explicitly rebound, it refers to "'''all''' the cows that I see". [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877608075857637386 “The point of it is to catch the same things as appeared in the previous sentence … instead of just any.”]

	Applying this same "crude handling" to quantifiers in subclauses, the meaning of the Toaq sentence above is: "All farmers who own some donkeys, care for all the donkeys that they own." This is often sufficient.		Applying this same "crude handling" to quantifiers in subclauses, the meaning of the Toaq sentence above is: "All farmers who own some donkeys, care for all the donkeys that they own." This is often sufficient.
Line 26:		Line 26:
	One idea is to explicitly anaphorically refer back to the construct containing the now-unbound variable and talk about its participants, as proposed [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877609515267260437 by Hoemāı] and [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/887013492371099688 by Hoaqgīo].		One idea is to explicitly anaphorically refer back to the construct containing the now-unbound variable and talk about its participants, as proposed [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/877609515267260437 by Hoemāı] and [https://discord.com/channels/311223912044167168/311223912044167168/887013492371099688 by Hoaqgīo].

	<blockquote>"If you have a pet, then the pet in the previously mentioned state of affairs does XYZ." — ~~Hoemāı~~<br>"{{t\|Tu rảı güo ~~kâqgāı~~ jí sa ~~kủsērā~~ bı}} … the one who participates in the {{t\|guo}} by seeing something, likes the thing that participates in the {{t\|guo}} by being seen." — Hoaqgīo</blockquote>		<blockquote>"If you have a pet, then the pet in the previously mentioned state of affairs does XYZ." — Hoemaı<br>"{{t\|Tu rảı güo kâqgaı jí sa kủsera bı}} … the one who participates in the {{t\|guo}} by seeing something, likes the thing that participates in the {{t\|guo}} by being seen." — Hoaqgīo</blockquote>

	== External links ==		== External links ==
	* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_sentence ''Donkey sentence'' on Wikipedia]		* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_sentence ''Donkey sentence'' on Wikipedia]
	* [https://mw.lojban.org/papri/All_about_poi_and_noi#PA_da_noi ''All about poi and noi'' on the Lojban wiki]. The ''PA da noi'' section demonstrates a similar "surprising ∀ quantifier".		* [https://mw.lojban.org/papri/All_about_poi_and_noi#PA_da_noi ''All about poi and noi'' on the Lojban wiki]. The ''PA da noi'' section demonstrates a similar "surprising ∀ quantifier".