On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:29= PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra= @yahoo.com> wrote:

To sum = up one part of this discussion, if there is a variable (with or without a

quantifier) in a comp= ound predication, it can only come from an underlying
compound sentence of the form Qx(Fx= X Gx) or something equivalent to that, which
turns out to be just AxFx & AxGx) and ExFx v = ExGx. Other quantifiers cannot be

collapsed at all. Now, as to how situation is rep= resented in Lojban, the only

problem case is a plain {da} with a disjunctive predication. = ;But since this is

e= quivalent to the (relatively) prenex form, the rule to use that prenex for = all{{

cases holds.

I'm not sure I follow your rea= soning. Consider for example:

(1) ro= nanla .e nai ro nixli pu citka su'o plise
"Every boy and = not every girl ate some apple."

My reading= of that is:

(2) ge ro da poi nanla = su'o de poi plise zo'u da de citka gi na ku ro
da poi nixli= su'o de poi plise zo'u da de citka
"For every x who is a = boy there is some y that is an apple such that
x ate y and = it is not the case that for every x who is a girl there is
= some y that is an apple such that x ate y."

You seem to be saying that it's either:
.
(3) su'o da poi plise zo'u ge ro de poi nanla zo'u de da citka gi na
ku ro de poi nixli zo'u de da citka
"There is s= ome x that is an apple such that for every y who is a boy,
= y ate x and such that it is not the case that for every y who is agirl y ate x."

or:

(4) ro da poi nanla ku'o ro de poi nixli ku'o su'o di poi= plise zo'u
ge da di citka gi na ku zo'u de di citka=
"For every x who is a boy and every y who is a girl there is som= e z
that is an apple such that x ate z and it is not the ca= se that y ate
z"

or perhap= s:

(5) ro da poi nanla ku'o su'o de poi pl= ise zo'u ge da de citka gi na
ku su'o di poi nixli zo'u di = de citka
"For every x who is a boy there is some y that is= an apple such that
x ate y and it is not the case that for= every z who is a girl z ate y"

You seem t= o be saying that "su'o plise" for some reason must have
sco= pe over ".e", but I'm not sure where you would put "ro nanla" and"ro nixli" with respect to ".e" (and thus with respect to "su'o
plise").

I hope we all agree t= hat in "ro nanla cu citka su'o plise" it is "ro
nanla" that= has scope over "su'o plise", so readings (3) and (5),
whic= h make "su'o plise" have scope over at least one of the preceding"ro", seem quite wrong to me. As for reading (4), with "ro nixli"
having scope over the negation, it's also weird.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- <= /span>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the= Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send = email to lojban@googlegroups.com= .
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com= /group/lojban?hl=3Den.