From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sun Jun 04 23:49:28 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3256 ; Sun, 04 Jun 95 23:49:26 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Sun, 04 Jun 95 15:43:27 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa06255; 4 Jun 95 16:42 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6211; Sun, 04 Jun 95 11:40:55 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1414; Sun, 4 Jun 1995 11:40:45 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 16:39:17 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: (Your message of Sat, 03 Jun 95 20:28:38 EDT.) Message-ID: <9506041642.aa06255@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R Jorge: > > 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. Okay. > > 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. Okay. Consider my proposal withdrawn. I go along with your proposal. --- And