Message-Id: <199511080115.UAA25623@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 7 Nov 1995 20:03:20 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: bal}Nirely, three dogs, on the web
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

la pc die cusku
> I wonder, then, whether the afterthought fronting marker proposed
> a while back (does anyone remember what it was?  xa'a?) might not
> be better thought of as an independence marker, so that it might
> be applied also in the case of two or more number quantifiers to
> achieve the effect that mere fronting will not manage. Since
> universals never need this effect, the marker could be kept as a
> literal fronting for them, for afterthought fronting for them is
> fairly common, though less so than independence moves for other
> quantifiers.  So, for three men and three dogs we might have _ci
> nanmu cu pencu xa'a ci gerku_ (or variants).

I generally changed my views about the desirability of afterthought
scope indicators, since it is unlikely we could come up with a
sufficiently general scheme to do all scope in afterthought.
So, I'd argue, we need solutions only for things that can be done
neither in afterthought not forethought. The 3 dog problem can be
solved in forethought, by conjunction in prenex, as noted long ago
by Jorge. Jorge also proposed that non-outermost quantifiers all
have coordinate scope, so if that suggestion was taken up we'd also
have an afterthought solution.

---
And,

       eosai ko se lanzu us seething rationalist types.