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 m0sRCvJ-0000YpC; Thu, 29 Jun 95 09:18 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 135AC0BB ; Thu, 29 Jun 1995 2:47:02 +0200 Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 20:48:14 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: proposed quant. scope cmavo: xu'u X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 743 Lines: 18 la djan cusku di'e > > 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. Well, {fa'u} would be the right one to say that A touched a, B touched b, and C touched c, (another great use for {fa'u}, it is a very good cmavo) but that is not the meaning we were talking about. The one that And called the "coordinate" case would give the nine combinations: A touches a, b and c; B touches a, b and c; and C touches a, b and c. That's the one we would get with {e}: ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zo'u: da batci de Jorge