From lojbab Mon Sep 26 10:00:18 1994 Received: from access2.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA18603 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Mon, 26 Sep 1994 10:00:12 -0400 Received: by access2.digex.net id AA19795 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Mon, 26 Sep 1994 10:01:20 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199409261401.AA19795@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: Exporting numerical abstractors to the prenex To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 10:01:19 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199409251124.AA26176@nfs1.digex.net> from "Veijo Vilva" at Sep 25, 94 01:26:20 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 866 Status: RO la veion. cusku di'e > Just to show that it is possible to cope with the interpretation > of external quantifiers as a kind of numerical abstractors. > > mi nitcu re tanxe > > can be transformed to > > ny pe li re zo'u mi nitcu vei ny tanxe > For n = 2: I need n boxes. This is an interesting idea, but without making a judgment on the merits, I would like to propose a different member of GOI to use here, namely "goi". ny. goi li re zo'u mi nitcu vei ny. tanxe N is-defined-to-be the-number 2 : I need ( N ) boxes. (Note for those who don't realize: we need the explicit open paren cmavo "vei" here because "ny." by itself is a sumti, not a quantifier.) Unless there is adverse comment, I will add this use of "goi" to the MEX paper. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.