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 m0sQjUA-0000YjC; Wed, 28 Jun 95 01:52 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 91F50823 ; Wed, 28 Jun 1995 0:35:45 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 23:34:28 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: proposed quant. scope cmavo: xu'u X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 26 Jun 95 22:55:51 CST.) Content-Length: 1211 Lines: 32 Chris: > I haven't been following this completely thoroughly, so it may be > irrelevant or redundant. I especially agree with And that the whole > matter of quantifier scope in afterthought form ought to be looked at > all at once, rather than patched together piecemeal with new cmavo; but > it's an interesting idea... > It looks to me like the three/nine dog problem is that there's no way, > even in the prenex, to indicate that two quantified variables exist at > the same scope. > 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 suggested ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zohu da batci de So there is a way to do it in the prenex. > I hate to suggest this, being a general opponent of cmavo proliferation, > but: > If we have to add a cmavo, how about a "non-such-that" cmavo (what's > left... xu'u?). I agree with you that afterthought devices (including one to do this job) are desirable, and that they shouldn't be introduced piecemeal. I've written a short discussion paper on afterthought scope which I hope could serve as the basis for further discussion. --- And