From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:54:35 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 2 Mar 1993 15:28:18 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5038; Tue, 02 Mar 93 15:24:36 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5403; Tue, 02 Mar 93 15:30:26 EST Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 15:26:01 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: scope of prenex X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Tue Mar 2 15:28:20 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: <8GN3XL9bA5P.A.Sy.r20kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> I wouldn't agree that the scope of a prenex extends as indefinitely as Cowan seems to imply. It certainly doesn't extend over a paragraph boundary which otherwise resets anaphora assignments, for example. I believe that I have said that the prenex would last indefinitely on sentences connected with logical connectives, provided that there is no new prenex that reassigns the variable. The logical connectedness of sentences joined only with .i is vague, and therefore, the continuing scope of a "da" is implicitly equally vague. I would tend to think that if there has been no indication of a reassignment that pragmatically one would tend to assume that it is the same "da" as the earlier reference. But I would rather see people use ".ije" if they consciously intend this. lojbab