From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Thu Jun 29 22:30:11 1995 Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3672 ; Thu, 29 Jun 95 22:30:09 BST Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Thu, 29 Jun 95 00:47:34 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt3.demon.co.uk id aa10706; 29 Jun 95 1:47 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1673; Wed, 28 Jun 95 20:45:03 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1690; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 20:45:03 -0400 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: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506290147.aa10706@punt3.demon.co.uk> Status: R 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