Message-Id: <m0sSpPt-0000Z8C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Mon, 3 Jul 1995 13:35:56 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: ci stedu,
              and a new dumb idea on quantifiers for people to tear up
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 4140
Lines: 88

la lojbab cusku di'e

> My argument is that:
>
> {ro lo prenu cu na prami lo prenu} and
> {lo prenu cu na se prami ro lo prenu}
>
> both have the same scope with regard to the interaction of "na" with
> the sumti.  I have always felt that "se" should work that way as well.
> EXCEPT when there are explicit bound variables.

I always felt {se} acting on the selbri, not the bridi, so that {se prami}
is a selbri just as is {prami} or {mutce prami} or {se prami prenu}. Since
in {se prami prenu}, {se} acts on {prami} only, this suggests that indeed
it is a selbri modifier, not a bridi modifier.

{na}, on the other hand, acts on the whole bridi. In {na prami prenu},
{na} does not act on {prami} only.

Besides, if {se} really acts on the whole bridi, why is this rule
abandoned in the presence {da}? It seems totally arbitrary, and also
confusing, since it is necessary to rearrange the sumti to work out
the scopes, or if suddenly, after using three non-da sumti, the fourth
contains a {da}, you have to change the whole meaning of what you had
already partially understood of the sentence.

> So this gives a difference between da poi prenu and lo prenu, since there is
> no explicit bound variable in the latter.

I don't understand why you want a difference at all costs. Fiddling
with the scopes would provide a difference, yes, but it makes things
more complicated without any real gain. It makes it impossible to say
certain things without using {da}s, and doesn't really allow you to
say anything new. And then there are all the complications of deciding
what happens when you mix the two modes:

        ro da cu se prami lo prenu

Who wins here? The sumti numbers of {prami} or the fact that there
is a use of {da}? It seems crazy to base rules on the use or not of
a certain type of sumti. What if {da} is used in a subordinate
clause, does that affect the scopes in the main clause?

> >There is nothing complicated about {lo prenu} = {da poi prenu}. I can't
> >think of anything that would be simpler.
>
> Leaving "lo" out of the language - it would have spared a year of arguments
 %^)

But {lo} is very useful. For one, it is usually shorter than the {da poi}
expression, and it can be used with the special tricks that exist for
gadri, like {lo mi cukta} and such. {lo} has its place in the pattern of
gadri, what's the problem with having other equivalent expressions?
Practically every cmavo has some more or less equivalent way of replacing
it. That's not a bad thing, it's probably inevitable.

> It was put into the language, and has been used, on the assumption that it
> means something different.

It has also been used on the assumption that it doesn't. And probably in
most cases it doesn't matter, because the different interpretations
don't make any difference.

> Yes, I have trouble saying what it is, because
> I am not all that good at talking logic-ese.  In most cases it means the
> same thing, but there is something else there that evades clear explanation.

Well, at least are there examples where it clearly does not mean the
same thing? If it's just a matter of connotations then it's not worth
discussing the difference, because they can only be related to usage,
of which there hasn't been much. {mi do tavla} and {mi tavla do} may
acquire at some point different connotations, but we agree that they
at least by prescription mean the same thing. I don't see why there
should be a prescription that says that {da poi broda} means something
different from {lo broda}. If they are to mean something different,
then the difference should be something useful. I don't believe that
the ordering of scopes according to the SE-less selbri is a good
rule. I think it is confusing to say the least.

> I think it is partly hinged on the difference between restriction and
> description. (poi vs. LE) and partly on the bound/free variable distinction.
> But the arguments get bogged down in terminology and logical analysis and
> we never get anywhere, so I have stopped trying.

I agree that we shouldn't care about terminology. A few example sentences
showing the alleged differences is all I ask.

Jorge