From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Jun 04 23:49:13 1995
Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA3252 ; Sun, 04 Jun 95 23:49:11 BST
Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk;
          Sun, 04 Jun 95 00:28:25 GMT
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa27672;
          4 Jun 95 1:28 +0100
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5203; Sat, 03 Jun 95 20:26:09 EDT
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4852; Sat, 3 Jun 1995 20:26:09 -0400
Date:         Sat, 3 Jun 1995 20:28:38 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@phyast.pitt.edu
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From:         jorge@phyast.pitt.edu
Subject:      Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Iain Alexander <ia@stryx.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID:  <9506040128.aa27672@punt2.demon.co.uk>
Status: R

And:
> I of course agree. BUT we must make sure we won't be lacking a simple
> grammatical means to say:
>
>    There is a set, X, and there is a set, Y, such that for
>      every V, V in X, and for every W, W in Y, V goes to W.
>
> (= your "each of many people goes to each of many places").

My way of saying that would be:

        so'i da e so'i de zo'u: da klama de
        For many x and many y: x goes to y

The {e} makes sure that the scope of both {so'i}s is the same.
You are forced to use the prenex, but it is a rather abstruse
meaning anyway.


> I tentatively propose that, slightly contrary to what you suggest,
> this should be the meaning of
>
> > (1)     so'i prenu cu klama so'i da
> > (2)     so'i da se klama so'i prenu
>
> While "For each of many people there are many places that they go to"
> should be:
>
>     sohi lo prenu cu klama sohi da
>     (= ro lo sohi lo prenu)
>
> That is, {lo broda} is equivalent not to {suho lo [suho] broda} (or to
> {da poi broda}) but to {ro lo suho lo [suho] broda}, while {suho broda}
> is still equivalent to {suho da poi broda}.
>
> What do people reckon to this?

I don't like it, because you can't make the distinction in the prenex
or in {da} notation.

Jorge