From pdf23ds@gmail.com Wed Jan 19 18:56:24 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:56:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.196])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CrSUb-0001yV-5L
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:56:17 -0800
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so82977wri
        for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:55:46 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=mIdWF0Zwtt67t2G5oicp0q64EJF3AVpOydxkrXmnZ+qU6UVh9lUAUI0iaj65deP9MwQZYOkVJG29Wbq3r/GxMAfjXUzzcsKuEs3FJXmcK/hZiHFbz8KPxbj/FHMLKo4Jvsc0TXGRADC9L4cbbPuiND8x0y5no6HhtBRLWid1Iic=
Received: by 10.54.22.53 with SMTP id 53mr297480wrv;
        Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:55:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.54.15.62 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <737b61f3050119185521094cb3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:55:46 -0600
From: Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] outer and inner quantifiers on "le"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-archive-position: 9287
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: pdf23ds@gmail.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

What's the meaning of "pimu le pano nanmu"? Is it the same as "le mu
nanmu"? What's the difference between that and "pimu lei pano nanmu"?
And how do you justify a particular interpretation of the semantics of
"pimu le"?

Does "pimu le pano nanmu" mean that each man has his legs cut off? I
don't see how this interpretation could be parallel to "re le pano
nanmu" meaning "two of the ten men". For it to be parallel, "re le
pano nanmu" would have to mean something like "each of the ten men and
his clone".

The grammar says in chapter six, "saying ``pimu le nanmu'' would give
us a half-portion of one [man]". Since the implicit inner quantifier
in this case is "su'o", I don't see how this statement could be
accurate in contexts where "nanmu" is understood to be plural.

In other words, the interaction between inner and outer quantifiers
seems to be a bit more mysterious to me than the interaction between,
say, inner quantifiers and selbri ("lei ci nanmu cu bevri le pipno").

Chris Capel
-- 
"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)