From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Jun 02 22:53:54 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3228 ; Fri, 02 Jun 95 22:53:52 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 01 Jun 95 22:03:02 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa27321; 1 Jun 95 23:02 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2615; Thu, 01 Jun 95 18:00:55 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8419; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 17:56:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 17:58:39 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506012302.aa27321@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R And: > What are the properties of {zo'e}? I thought it was that it could be > equivalent to {da} or to {keha}; I didn't realize it had extra magic. I think {zo'e} does have extra magic, but I'm not sure. In any case, I have reconsidered the case of general quantifiers and I'm now inclined to take your view, which really does seem much more intuitive. Some examples: (1) so'i prenu cu klama so'i da Many people go to many places. (2) so'i da se klama so'i prenu Many places are gone to by many people. In English, those two mean different things. The most natural meaning (I think) is: for (1) that each of many people goes to many places, but since everybody can go to different places, each place might be gone to by very few people; and for (2) that each of many places are gone to by many people, but each person maybe goes to one place only. What do they mean in Lojban? That depends on how are general quantifiers to be interpreted. I thought {re prenu} was to be interpreted as: "There exists an x that is a person and there exists a y that is a person and x is not equal to y:" and whatever was claimed was claimed for x and for y. But I think And's interpretation is better: "There is a set of two persons, such that for every x of that set:" whatever. (Actually, it has to be supplemented by "and no set of more than two persons", if the exactness of numbers is to be preserved.) This would mean that general quantifiers (almost anything except {ro} and {su'opa}), really hide one existential and one universal quantifier, rather than some indefinite number of existential ones. This causes (1) and (2) to mean different things. But if they were to mean the same thing, it would be that each of the many persons goes to each of many places, which is not the most useful meaning. I couldn't find a single example with more than one general quantifier in the reference grammar, so I don't know if there really is a policy on this. My impresion was that they were supposed to be generalized existentials, but I may well be wrong. I better let John answer. Jorge