From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Jun 11 23:32:18 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3375 ; Sun, 11 Jun 95 23:32:13 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sat, 10 Jun 95 11:57:09 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa16259; 10 Jun 95 12:56 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9690; Sat, 10 Jun 95 07:54:17 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2729; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 07:54:18 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 12:55:21 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: bits & pieces to Jorge on quantifiers X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506101256.aa16259@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R Jorge: > > I had been saying to Jorge that many intuitive uses of {re prenu} > > in fact meant {ro lo re lo prenu}, so that it might be better to > > have {re [lo] prenu} interpreted as {ro lo re lo prenu} and {lo > > prenu} as {ro lo suo lo prenu}. > I don't think this is really what you proposed. For example: > so'i prenu cu klama so'i stuzi > Many people go to many places. > We want this to mean that for each of many people there are many > places that they go. 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. > Which is not the meaning we want. We want the second {so'i} to > have scope within the scope of the first {ro}. So your talk of > sets is more accurate. Your English rendering is ambiguous between the meaning we do want and the one we don't. (What we want is "For each of many people there is a set of places such that for each place the person goes to the place" - i.e., with scope as you say.) Doesn't what my recipe gives make the second {sohi} have scope within the first {ro}, given the left to right scope rule? > > >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. > > I'm not sure even {suopa} should be exempt. > It wouldn't matter. The rules for {su'opa} and {ro} are the same with > both interpretations, the more complicated quantifiers are the ones > that can be different. I guess so. I don't yet see why you;re right, but you usually are, & I can't find any counterexamples. > > > 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. > > Under the revised interpretation of quantifiers, the first one means > > something perfectly normal - there exists a threesome of bipeds. The > > second one means for each of a pair of legs there are three people > > it's the leg of. > No, you are giving the revised meanings of {su'oci remna cu se tuple > re tuple} and of {su'ore tuple cu tuple ci remna}. Right. > 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". --- And