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 m0sQjiH-0000YjC; Wed, 28 Jun 95 02:06 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id B3DD548C ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 1:05:20 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 17:05:06 -0600 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: proposed quant. scope cmavo: xu'u X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2044 Lines: 55 I said: >> But I don't know how to say: >> >> "E3x,3y, x is a man, y is a dog, SUCH THAT x bites y" >> (i.e. there are three men and three dogs, and each man bites each dog) Jorge replies: >In the prenex it can be done with {e}: > >With {e} the two quantifiers must be at the same level. For example, in: > >the two cats are not selected for each of the dogs. The four animals >are selected at the same level. OK, I wondered if that might work. It does seem kind of weird, since I thought you could split .e-joined things into two sentences: ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zo'u: da batci de ought to resolve to: ci da poi nanmu zo'u: da batci de .ije ci de poi gerku zo'u: da batci de Or is the .e resolution different in the prenex? >In afterthought, it can be done if non-outermost quantifiers are to be >understood as having widest scope. Then in that case: Ah, some of the conversation I wasn't getting just 'clicked'. Probably a better solution than my proposal. >> If we have to add a cmavo, how about a "non-such-that" cmavo (what's left... >> xu'u?). Most of the time, you'd assume that between two existential >> quantifiers there was a "such that", getting the up-to-9-dog interpretation. > >As an aside, there already is a "such-that" cmavo, namely {zo'u}. It is >grammatical to write: Cool, I didn't realize you could use zo'u more than once. If you agreed that ".e" causes problems in the prenex as I described, maybe "zo'unai" could serve that function? >I'm happy with {ci nanmu cu batci ri} (themselves) and {ci nanmu cu batci >ro ri} (themselves and each other). This gives even more plausibility to >{xu'u} = {ro}. 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? And you seemed to imply in our lojban conversation about cteki that "vo'a" in the same place has a different effect. mi cfipu. However I'm de-cfipued enough to withdraw my poor little xu'u.