Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 09:55:46 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: mamta be ma
In-reply-to: <199501222046.AA04762@nfs1.digex.net> from "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU"
 at Jan 22, 95 02:56:05 pm
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HM6V6F6OAQ000NIS@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2127
Lines: 52

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> You are requiring that the {ro} be actually transported to the prenex,
> and ignored in the body. This never happens. In general, if you explicitly
> write the word {ro} in the body, you override the prenex, so
>
> [1] ro da su'o de zo'u de prami ro da
> For every x, there is a y, such that y loves every x.
>
> Is equivalent to:
>
> [2] de prami ro da
> There is a y that loves every x.
>
> The {roda} in the prenex is cancelled by the subsequent quantification.
> (I may be wrong about this, but I think not.)

I believe you get the right result in this case, but for the wrong reason.
Once a da-series variable is bound in a prenex, further quantification is
actually selection, so in your example 1, the second "ro da" is to be read
"all of the X's."  For a (slightly) more useful example, consider:

3)      ci da poi jukpa zo'u re da slabu mi
        There are three cooks such that two of them are familiar to me.

As it is a fuzzy question just what the limit of a binding is, sometimes a
requantification may be a totally fresh rebinding rather than a subselection.
Formally, a binding lasts only through the current bridi plus any following
bridi tacked on with sentence logical connectives; in practice, it may persist
longer in the absence of conflicts.  "da'o" may be used to clear up all
ambiguity.

In this sense, then, the da-series variables are two-faced: before binding, they
act like -specific sumti, with default quantification "su'o"; after binding,
they act like +specific sumti, with default quantification "ro".  Thus, in:

4)      su'opanono da poi cukta mi nelci da
        For each of at least 100 X's which are books, I like X
        I like (at least) 100 books.

an equivalent form is:

5)      su'opanono da poi cukta mi nelci ro da
        For each of at least 100 X's which are books, I like (each of) X.

At least, so it seems to me now.  But this is not a definitive pronouncement,
and I don't think there have been any really definitive ones.

--
John Cowan              sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.