From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 22 23:28:27 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3540 ; Thu, 22 Jun 95 23:28:25 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 22 Jun 95 03:25:27 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa26867; 22 Jun 95 4:25 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4561; Wed, 21 Jun 95 23:23:07 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3496; Wed, 21 Jun 1995 22:31:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:56:44 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: pc answers To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 19 Jun 95 11:35:51 EDT.) Message-ID: <9506220425.aa26867@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R Jorge to pc: > > Xorxes call attention to a further problem also involved here, ci > > nanmu cu pencu ci gerku. The choices here are between one that involves > > three men and only three dogs and one that involves three men and as many > > as nine dogs, three for each man. As usual the first reading entails the > > second, so, if we decide that the Lojban means the second, we have a > > cover for the first as well. But the issue then is, how do we say the > > first explcitly (short of spelling out the quantifiers, of course). > One possibility is: > ro lo ci lo nanmu cu pencu ro lo ci lo gerku > Each of three of all men touch each of three of all dogs. I don't get that as necessarily distinct from pc's second reading. That is, why should it be There's a cimei of men, and there's a cimei of dogs, such that each member of the man cimei touches each member of the dog cimei rather than There's a cimei of men, such that for each m, m a member of the man cimei, there's a cimei of dogs, such that m touches each member of the dog cimei ? I recall you saying that the solution was something approximately resembling ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zohu da pencu de I find that a better solution, but since it requires forethought, and since I agree with pc that everything should have an alternative afterthought mode of expression, I also think that pc is right to think that a new cmavo might be useful to signal parallel scope, i.e. Ev, v a cimei, Ew, w a cimei, Ax, x in v, Ay, y in w: x pencu y instead of what we seem to be agreeing should be the default: Ev, v a cimei, Ax, x in v: Ew, w a cimei, Ay, y in w: x pencu y The new cmavo would signal that that the second existential quantifier precedes the first universal quantifier, or, in different words, that the existential quantifier (for the mei) in the sumti marked by that cmavo scopes before the last universal quantifier (for the cmima) in the logical form so far. I would like to add that I think these afterthought cmavo should be adopted as part of a more general programme to provide general purpose methods of afterthought scope. I get the impression that Loglan was created with much thought given to predicate-argument structure and very little to quantifier scope. One of the lessons I've learnt from Lojban is that these are the two (& possibly the only two) most important jobs syntax must have (though it can shirk them), and the structures required for each are pretty much independent of each other. --- And