Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pWQYp-0000PgC; Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:15 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8643; Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:11:50 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8640; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 16:11:50 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0668; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:10:58 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 13:11:43 GMT Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta) X-To: lojbab@access.digex.net X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2047 Lines: 57 la kau,n. tu'a mi di'e spuda > > I suppose {lo klama be ro da} must be one who goes to every destination, > > and {lo klama be da}, assuming {da} is currently unbound, is one who goes > > to some destination (no matter which). So the {da} becomes implicitly > > bound *inside* the description, and {ro klama be da} are the members of > > the set {x: exists(y): klama(x,y,...)}. > I think this is all entirely correct, ... so you say ... > PROVIDED that you keep in mind the > fundamental difference between "standard" quantifier scope and Lojban > quantifier scope. > First of all, there are no free variables in Lojban: all are quantified > as soon as they appear. The default quantification is existential. > (This makes Lojban transcriptions of Prolog annoying.) > The scope of a quantified variable extends from: > the most recent place where a "prenex" grammatical construct > could have occurred, viz. the innermost relative clause, > abstraction, GEK-GIK-connected subsentence, main sentence, > TUhE-TUhU supersentence, or whole text containing the variable; > or: > the most recent appearance of this variable with an explicit > quantifier prepended; ... but there is no place in such a description where a prenex could have occurred. If it had been {ro da poi [de zo'u:] da klama de}, fair enough, but it appears from this that {ro klama be de} refers to all goers to one specific place, since {de} is quantified *outside* the description, in whatever bridi it occupies. > up to: > the appearance of an "appropriate" number of NIhO cmavo, where > "appropriate" is usually 1-2 but may depend on context; > or: > a single "da'o" cmavo, which cancels all bindings; > or: > another appearance of the same variable with explicit quantifier > prepended. > It follows from these rules that Lojban is "fully alpha-converted": there > are no inner-scope rebindings. Is this the same as saying that there are no nested scopes? mi'e .i,n.