From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Mon Mar 1 16:42:50 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Mon, 1 Mar 1993 16:42:47 -0500 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9225; Mon, 01 Mar 93 16:39:06 EST Received: from CUVMB.BITNET by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 6320; Mon, 01 Mar 93 16:44:25 EST Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 15:47:19 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TECH: RE: Goats' legs and counting X-To: Lojban List To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: <9303010900.AA29295@getafix.oasis.icl.co.uk> from "I.Alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk" at Mar 1, 93 09:00:43 am Status: OR Message-ID: <8v4X3Y9zWoB.A.Y2.320kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> mi pu cusku di'e > > Unspecified sumti are quantified in an unspecified way. > > ... > > Since unspecified sumti have vague quantifiers, > > it doesn't matter where they go. la .i,n cusku di'e > At first I didn't know _what_ to make of the former statement, > until I realised that there are two obvious candidates, > existential and universal quantification, > and it could just be ambiguous which is intended. > Then I re-read From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Tue Mar 2 15:28:20 1993 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 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