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 m0sXPo0-0000ZJC; Sun, 16 Jul 95 12:16 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 4230063C ; Fri, 14 Jul 1995 23:08:56 +0200 Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 17:08:14 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: 3 men touch 3 dogs X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1154 Lines: 32 la djer cusku di'e > 1. lo ci nanmu ku goi da ci lo gerku ku goi de zo'u tu'e da pencu de At least one of the three men that there are touches exactly three dogs. > 2. lo ci nanmu ku goi da ci lo so gerku ku goi de zo'u tu'e da pencu de At least one of the three men that there are touches exactly three of the nine dogs that there are. > 3. lo ci nanmu ku goi da ci lo ci gerku ku goi de zo'u tu'e da pencu de At least one of the three men that there are touches exactly three of the three dogs that there are. Actually, {goi} is supposed to be used only with assignable variables, but taking {da} as one doesn't do harm in this case. These examples mean the same under any of the two interpretations because in all of them the claim is for "at least one man". The nested and the co-equal scope both give the same meaning in this case. Inside quantifiers aren't really an issue, and using them only complicates matters, because you are making the additional claim that that is the total number of men/dogs that there are in all. Usually we don't want to make that additional claim. Jorge (BTW, thanks for the reference for the E! notation.)