From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Wed Jun 28 22:55:12 1995 Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3647 ; Wed, 28 Jun 95 22:55:08 BST Received: from punt3.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Tue, 27 Jun 95 22:43:48 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt3.demon.co.uk id aa03448; 27 Jun 95 23:42 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6547; Tue, 27 Jun 95 18:40:55 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6781; Tue, 27 Jun 1995 18:35:41 -0400 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: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: (Your message of Mon, 26 Jun 95 22:55:51 CST.) Message-ID: <9506272342.aa03448@punt3.demon.co.uk> Status: R 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