Message-Id: <199509132251.SAA06340@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 13 Sep 1995 18:33:53 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: Iain on quantifiers
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

And:
> Iain:
> > If your question is how to say it in Lojban, my preferred solution
> > at the moment would be an explicit {ro}
> >         ro ci nanmu cu rapypencu ro ci gerku
> > which would be equivalent to
> >         ro lo ci lo nanmu cu rapypencu ro lo ci lo gerku
>
> I think that in the current state of the language these aren't
> equivalent. {ro ci nanmu cu pencu ro ci gerku} means "every man
> pats every dog, & the cardinality of the set of all men is
> 3 and the c. of the set of all dogs is 3". But I'll be pleased
> if I'm mistaken on this point.

I think you are right. If I recall correctly, the relevant grammar
paper defines roci as ro=ci, but I agree that Iain's suggestion
looks much more useful.

That would give, in prenex notation:

ro ci da poi nanmu ku ro ci de poi gerku zo'u da de satre

which gives the coordinate reading if we agree that non-outermost
quantifiers have maximum scope.

Jorge