From cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG Sat Mar 6 22:45:19 2010 Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 09:38:30 -0400 From: John Cowan Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: la xorxes. cusku di'e > > So what does this mean: > > so'a da poi gerku cu se denci ije so'i da batci da > > Almost all dogs have teeth, and most of those bite (themselves?/ > > those that bite?/those with teeth?) > > > > To me it means "themselves", which doesn't agree with your rule (nor with > > what you say it doesn't mean). I think the last {da} doesn't have a > > quantifier. If you put one there it changes the meaning. la .i,n. cusku di'e > I think it has to mean the same as {so'i da zo'u: da batci da} - > many of those bite themselves. The following bridi would revert > to {da} = the one's with teeth. I don't agree. I believe that Jorge's example does indeed mean "most of those bite the ones with teeth", since "da" is not rebound. Iain's version, OTOH, means something quite different: "most things bite themselves". When "da" explicitly appears in a new prenex, that clobbers the old interpretation altogether, so all connection to dogs is lost. Essentially the rule as I have stated it gives meaning to the case in which an already-bound variable is explicitly quantified at the point of use. It is not intended as a general-purpose narrowing mechanism. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.