From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Jan 25 06:02:04 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 25 Jan 2003 06:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18cQsf-0003e6-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 06:01:58 -0800
Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-53-49.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.53.49])
	by lmsmtp04.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0772E47E9F
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 15:01:25 +0100 (MET)
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
To: <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban] Re: za'e "postnex"
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:01:25 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMAELLHGAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0301231526470.4560-100000@dave>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
X-archive-position: 3908
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

Martin:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> > > [text] .i ro ibu zo'u go'i/la'edi'u
> > > or
> > > [text with no .i on the end] vau to ro ibu zo'u
> >
> > Both are elegant but in different ways (which could be discussed on
> > Jboske) they both require glorking to get from what they actually say
> > to the intended meaning, whereas ordinary prenexes don't. That doesn't
> > mean that Martin wouldn't be satisfied with your suggestions, but it
> > does mean that it would be misleading to describe your suggestions as
> > afterthought quantification, if that implies some kind of strong parallel
> > with forethought quantification 
> 
> Indeed, but then the mathematical usage we were emulating is similarly
> ambiguous and ill-defined. I think the {li'o vau to li'o zo'u} solution is
> an accurate rendering of the original, and sounds quite natural. Though of
> course you're right that a proper prenex will always be preferable, it's
> something I can imagine quite often not thinking of in time 
> 
> Though perhaps it's best to keep lojban unforgiving, and let it teach us
> to think ahead more.. 

You're right. We want Lojban both to be able to unambiguously encode
our intended meaning and to be able to encode vague meanings that
leave a lot to glorking.

--And.