From ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk Sat Mar 6 22:56:11 2010 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 18:47:10 +0100 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: proposals To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Wed Apr 26 19:53:21 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: 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