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 #1) id m0rIMWR-00007DC; Thu, 15 Dec 94 22:11 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4237; Thu, 15 Dec 94 22:11:46 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4234; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 22:11:45 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8722; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 21:08:23 +0100 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:54:57 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: Q-kau To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1042 Lines: 32 la lojbab cusku di'e > BTW, I am also interested in how a language with totally free word order > handles the quantificational problems. Esperanto claims to have totally free > word order - I don't think Esperanto claims that (for example, the article always comes before the noun), but it is relatively more free-order than English. > how does it deal with "Everybody loves somebody" with object > first? Any other order-free languages provide insights? Cxiu amas iun. Everybody loves somebody. Iun amas cxiu. Everybody loves somebody. Iu estas amata de cxiu. Somebody is loved by everybody. De cxiu estas amata iu. By everybody, somebody is loved. And you can make more combinations. To me it seems that the difference in scope is handled by using the participle, like English does, but you can still play with the word order. Of course, the above is only my impresion, not any rigid rule, since Esperanto certainly does not claim to reflect predicate logic. Jorge