Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (psuvm.psu.edu [128.118.56.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA05604 for ; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 16:29:23 -0400 Message-Id: <199508282029.QAA05604@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0138; Mon, 28 Aug 95 16:01:03 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9490; Mon, 28 Aug 1995 13:15:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Aug 1995 13:14:44 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: McCawley X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Aug 28 16:29:31 1995 X-From-Space-Address: <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> And: > I have just discovered that my contention that the logical form > of > Two people left. > Re prenu cu cliva. > is > Ex x is set & 2 is cardinality of x & Ay [y is in x] y left > is shared by James McCawley, in [...] > The authority for this contention is therefore as eminent as > anyone could require. The only reason why it seems to fail for Lojban is that {re prenu} is supposed to mean _exactly_ two people, while in your expansion, the existence of the set of cardinality 2 does not preclude the existence of a superset of cardinality 3 whose members also all leave. So for Lojban it would have to be: Ex x is set & 2 is cardinality of x & Ay [y is in x] y left & ~Ex x is set & 3 is cardinality of x & Ay [y is in x] y left Given that, I don't think anyone would disagree with it. The problem comes when you follow it with another quantifier. Does it have coordinate or subordinate scope? To simplify, let's use {su'ore} instead of the exact {re}. What is {su'ore prenu cu cliva lo zdani}? It could be either coordinate: Ex x is set & 2 is cardinality of x & Ez Ay [y is in x] y left z Two people leave a house (the same one). Or subordinate: Ex x is set & 2 is cardinality of x & Ay [y is in x] Ez y left z Two people leave a house (each their own). In other words, does the second quantifier come before or after the implicit "Ay" of "two people"? I don't think there is any reason why one choice is more "logical" than the other, it's a matter of convention. According to pc, the distinction is made by whether the quantifiers are put in the prenex or not, but I would prefer it if that didn't make a difference. In English, it is ambiguous between the two meanings. It will depend a lot on context. "Two people leave a house" sounds more probably coordinate, but "two people are wearing a white dress" sounds subordinate. Jorge