Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 12:50:04 -0500 (EST)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: selbri as sumti
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HNZ9OJUWOY002ENJ@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1293
Lines: 38

Chris:
> It might help to have some definitions, and jefydje isn't in my (outdated)
> jvoste, so I'll suggest one based on your claim that the x1 should be a
> category of days; correct me if it's wrong:
>
>    jefydje:  x1 is the category of all days which are the x2th of the week
>                                 they fall in
>
> We don't appear to have a gismu that relates members to categories, but I'll
> assume for a moment that a category is a kind of set.  Then we can use lu'a...
>
>    mi klama le zarci ca ro lu'a pa lo jefydje
>
> Or cmima...
>
>    mi klama le zarci ca ro cmima be pa lo jefydje
>
> Hmmm.. do these work or we still have the problem of the quantification of
> "ro" coming first?
 
Yes, I think that is the key issue. As you have them, the category
is selected for each member separately, so it doesn't give what we
want. I think
 
        mi klama le zarci ca ro cmima be pa mintu jefydje
 
should work. The problem has been kicked to the x2 of mintu,
and to make it explicit, we would need to use the prenex, but
I believe context does make it clear.
 
The problem as I see it is one of quantifier order. When the
quantifiers don't commute, and the syntax allows only one order,
then there is something that can't be said without use of the
prenex.
 
 
Jorge