Message-Id: <m0sfzoG-0000ZHC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:18:56 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: quantifiers
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1011
Lines: 27

djer:
> ro lu'a goi ko'a lo'i ci nanmu ku ro lu'a goi ko'e
> lo'i ci gerku ku zo'u tu'e ko'a pencu ko'e
>
> Fo each of the individuals, ( aliased as it1) of the set of three men; for
> each of the individuals, (aliased as it2) of the set of three dogs, it1
> touches it2.

I agree with that, except I would use "a set" instead of "the set"
both times, since there is no unique set of three dogs or men.

> These sentences are not put forth as models in
> conciseness. The usual relation between precision and prolixity is in
> force.

Yes, but that doesn't help us determine what the concise {re nanmu cu
pencu re gerku} means. Does it mean what you have up there, or does it
get the nested scope meaning? We don't want to leave it ambiguous
like its English counterpart.

> ro lu'a lo'i re nanmu ku goi ko'a  re lu'a lo'i ro gerku ku goi ko'e
> zo'u tu'e ko'a pencu ko'e

That's the second possible meaning, and that's the one we seem to
have agreed is the most useful for {re nanmu cu pencu re gerku}.

Jorge