From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 22 23:29:35 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3555 ; Thu, 22 Jun 95 23:29:33 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 22 Jun 95 14:29:29 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa22231; 22 Jun 95 15:28 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 7566; Thu, 22 Jun 95 10:26:44 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3128; Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:26:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 07:25:48 -0700 Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" Sender: Lojban list From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: pc answes X-To: lojban list To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506221528.aa22231@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R OK, so read _ro_ for _su'o_ throughout the examples (_lo_ has changed so often that I can't tell if I am a tick behind or a tick ahead of the curve). The absurdity of the standard rules remain. Back to the main point. Assuming that _ci nanmu cu pencu ci gerku_ is the nine- dog sentence, we need independent _ci_s for the three-dog one. But a look at the logical form shows that the prenex forms of "three" are independent and capable of going in any order relative to other numbers and to the particular The universal creates a problem here, but we can deal with that by simply using the right order in the prenex. Thus, a fairly light cost, we can use _ci da poi nanmu ci de poi gerku [whatever the hell the prenex comma is] da pencu de_ or maybe even _ci nanmu ci gerku [comma] ny pencu gy_ . Or maybe even _[leaper] ci nanmu cu pencu [leaper] ci gerku_ (I can't even remember what the x-perimental form of leaper was, let alone what it might have been finally lexed as). We might even get by without the first [leaper], on the pragmatic ground that it is already set at the head of the sentence in terms of processing -- but that would need some experimenting (in particular to assure that it does not get the nine-man form). None of these will work if one of the objects involved is defined in terms of the other, but then the possibilities of their being independent is cut off anyhow. If we take the bare form to be the three-dog one, I do not see an equally easy way to get to the nine-dog form. pc>|83