Message-Id: <199504261815.UAA08127@listmail.sunet.se>
Date:         Wed, 26 Apr 1995 18:47:10 +0100
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: proposals
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Tue, 25 Apr 95 20:06:38 MST.)
Content-Length: 1421
Lines: 29

pc:
>              Of course, I still like the proposal to have an afterthought
>         quantifier that leaps to the head of the prenex, though I do not
>         much like using x-- space for it yet.  I am also in favor -- on
>         general principles -- of having afterthought everythings, so I
>         support proposals for them as well, though I do not exactly see
>         what they are to do.
>              I do not see the other proposal about quantifiers, broadly
>         speaking, namely to mark within intensional (opaque) contexts
>         those sumti which were to be taken as referring outside that
>         context and thus capable of being bound by external quantifiers
>         (or, if quantifier expressions, capable of being exported).
>         This proposal got mixed with the after-
>         thought quantifier proposal in some way and I failed to sort
>         matters out intelligibly at the time.

It's my fault they got mixed. I named the proposed cmavo in your second
para {xohu} & then mistakenly assumed it would also do the job of the
proposal in your first para & started using it in that way. I support
both proposals.

>              I just do not understand the continued requests for "any."

I think the point is to make things as easy to say as they are
in English, without having to use additional subordinate bridi.
But I wouldn't support the "any" requests.

---
And