Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sRCvH-0000YmC; Thu, 29 Jun 95 09:17 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 562907E1 ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 18:20:39 +0200 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 12:17:27 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: proposed quant. scope cmavo: xu'u X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199506272337.TAA22399@locke.ccil.org> from "jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU" at Jun 27, 95 07:36:39 pm Content-Length: 1249 Lines: 28 la xorxes. cusku di'e > {e} groups the two sumti together. {zo'u} splits them appart. > I think a connective is the right thing to get parallel scope. If not > {e} then one of the non-logical ones. I think the right connective in the prenex is "fa'u", since the whole idea is "Three men A, B, and C touched three dogs a, b, and c respectively. > > >I'm happy with {ci nanmu cu batci ri} (themselves) and {ci nanmu cu batci > > >ro ri} (themselves and each other). > > > > I don't understand how that works. With "ri" alone, why do we know they are > > each biting only themselves and not each other -- or is it merely a > > convenient convention? > > It would be a convention, but I think it is the most coherent one. > (I don't say it is THE convention because I have no idea what is > or whether there is an official position on this matter.) It has never been settled, I don't think, whether ri/ra/ru are de dicto or de re: in other words, does "lo nanmu batci ri" mean "lo nanmu batci vo'a" (de re) or "lo nanmu batci lo nanmu" (de dicto). I lean toward the first interpretation, which is consonant with history. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.