From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Sat Jun 24 00:38:42 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3580 ; Sat, 24 Jun 95 00:38:38 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Fri, 23 Jun 95 18:09:34 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa24323; 23 Jun 95 19:09 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4337; Fri, 23 Jun 95 14:07:02 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1647; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 13:52:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 18:23:26 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: pc answers X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 22 Jun 95 13:54:19 EDT.) Message-ID: <9506231909.aa24323@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R pc: > _ci da poi nanmu ci de poi gerku [whatever the hell the prenex comma > is] da pencu de_ > or maybe even _ci nanmu ci gerku [comma] ny pencu gy_ . > Or maybe even _[leaper] ci nanmu cu pencu [leaper] ci gerku_ I don't understand why these should be different from {ci nanmu cu pencu ci gerku}. I would rather hope they're not different, and that they all have the nine-dog reading. I am happier with Jorge's {ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zohu da pencu de} for the three dog reading. And I'd expect {ci nanmu cu pencu [leaper] ci gerku} to give a 3-dog, 9-man reading, with or without a leaper before {ci nanmu}. Jorge: > > > ro lo ci lo nanmu cu pencu ro lo ci lo gerku > > > Each of three of all men touch each of three of all dogs. > > I don't get that as necessarily distinct from pc's second reading. > > That is, why should it be > > There's a cimei of men, and there's a cimei of dogs, such that > > each member of the man cimei touches each member of the dog > > cimei > > rather than > > There's a cimei of men, such that for each m, m a member of the > > man cimei, there's a cimei of dogs, such that m touches each > > member of the dog cimei > > ? > Yes, it could be defined either way. I was thinking that the outer > quantifiers are nested in order of appearance and the inner ones > are independent. This seems to make sense to me, and allows > relatively simple forms for both the three dog and the nine dog > cases. I'm not clear what the logical forms would be under the version you were entertaining. I take it that by "inner quantifier" you don't mean "innermost", since everyone is agreed that the innermost quantifier of {ci broda} is {ro} - {ci lo ro broda}. If you do explain your version, could you also confirm that it covers {le ci nanmu cu pencu ci gerku} (which has the 3-dog/9-dog alternatives)? > > I recall you saying that the solution was something approximately > > resembling > > ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zohu da pencu de > I still think that works well, too. Me too. > > I find that a better solution, but since it requires forethought, > > and since I agree with pc that everything should have an alternative > > afterthought mode of expression, I also think that pc is right > > to think that a new cmavo might be useful to signal parallel > > scope, i.e. > > Ev, v a cimei, Ew, w a cimei, Ax, x in v, Ay, y in w: x pencu y > > instead of what we seem to be agreeing should be the default: > > Ev, v a cimei, Ax, x in v: Ew, w a cimei, Ay, y in w: x pencu y > Just as a reminder, these violate the goatleg rule. They would be > the two possibilities for {su'oci remna cu pencu su'oci gerku}. > The goatleg rule complicates matters somewhat. On top of the > existence of the cimei, uniqueness is also needed. But this is another > issue, mostly orthogonal to the one we are discussing. Could you remind me why (or whether) {ci nanmu cu pencu ci gerku} doesn't violate goatleg? > > The new cmavo would signal that that the second existential quantifier > > precedes the first universal quantifier, or, in different words, that > > the existential quantifier (for the mei) in the sumti marked by that > > cmavo scopes before the last universal quantifier (for the cmima) in > > the logical form so far. > I'm not 100% against, but I don't know. I would have to see how the > actual cmavo works in different sentences, what happens when there > is a third quantification, and so on. Yes. It is better to have some complete system of afterthought scope rather than ad hoc patches. > > I would like to add that I think these afterthought cmavo should be > > adopted as part of a more general programme to provide general purpose > > methods of afterthought scope. > It would certainly be interesting to work out what is or is not missing > in this respect. Do you have any ideas about a general scheme? No. I don't even have the glimmer of a beginning of an idea. If I think how Livagian does it, and then apply that to Lojban, I think it would mean numerous cmavo in GOI - {GOI KOhA} - with these cmavo indicating various scope relationships between their "arguments". But at this stage I would simply like to establish and get general agreement that Lojban ought to have a comprehensive method of doing afterthought scope. For me the upshot of The Any Debate was that there is such a need. --- And