From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Jun 11 23:31:10 1995 Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3356 ; Sun, 11 Jun 95 23:31:06 BST Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 10 Jun 95 15:16:36 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt3.demon.co.uk id aa22813; 10 Jun 95 16:15 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2120; Sat, 10 Jun 95 11:13:21 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2539; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 11:13:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 11:16:31 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: bits & pieces to Jorge on quantifiers X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506101615.aa22813@punt3.demon.co.uk> Status: R And: > > But your recipe gives: > > ro lo so'i lo prenu cu klama ro lo so'i lo stuzi > > Each of many people go to each of many places. > Doesn't what my recipe gives make the second {sohi} have scope > within the first {ro}, given the left to right scope rule? Now I'm not sure. The left to right rule is only for outer quantifiers, otherwise the {so'i} would also be within the second {ro}, which doesn't make any sense. But I'm not sure how intermediate quantifiers behave. I think the simplest thing is that they be independent, but I'm not sure. > > > > ci remna cu se tuple re tuple > > > > 3 people have 2 legs? > > > > vs. > > > > re tuple cu tuple ci remna > > > > 2 legs are legs for 3 people? > > > First, doesn't the current goatleg ruling mean that these both mean > > > "there are exactly three people and exactly two legs such that > > > each leg is leg of each person"? So (a) both mean the same thing, > > > and (b) both are false. > > They both mean that under one interpretation. I don't want to call > > it the traditional interpretation because I'm not sure anyone ever > > gave this rule. There is nothing about this in the grammar papers. > The goatleg rule was stated by John very explicitly on this list > a couple of years ago, in, I think, a discussion with Nick. Yes, but I wasn't talking about the goatleg rule there. The exactness of numbers is well established. What is not clear is whether the two legs (exactly two) should be the same ones for each of the three people (exactly three), or if we can have exactly two for each of them, but not necessarily the same ones. What I don't want to call the traditional interpretation is that they have to be the same two for all three, because I don't remember seeing that rule anywhere, even though before this discusssion I thought that was the rule. > > Unless we want to throw out the goatleg rule with our revision, which > > I wouldn't really miss, > I don't like it from a logical point of view, but without it things > are harder to say. E.g. "Exactly three people left" must be something > like "There is a set of card 3 such that x in the set *iff* x is > prenu and x is cliva". Well, there's always {cisu'eci prenu cu cliva}, three and no more than three, if you ever need to be that precise. Jorge