From cowan  Sat Mar  6 22:58:20 2010
Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 38: lambda via new selma'o CEhU
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
From: cowan
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:27:07 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199511280156.UAA01516@locke.ccil.org> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 27, 95 07:49:52 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length:        860
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 29 14:27:07 1995
X-From-Space-Address: cowan
Message-ID: <NXJPOtDrokF.A.91B.M60kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> "Quantifying" is a strange word for this, since all ce'u would do is
> tag a sumti as a lambda variable.

Granted that no number (quantitas) is involved, nonetheless \lambda(x) is
parallel to \E x and \A x.

> In fact, it is not clear what would be the difference between
> {le ka ce'u le ci prenu cu klama} and {le ka ce'u lo prenu cu klama}.
> Is the first one the property of being each of the three people that go,
> or just one of them?

It is the property of being any of the three the speaker has in mind;
in the latter case ("lo"), it is the property of being any one that might
exist.

> Is the default quantifier of {le} overridden by {ce'u}?

Yes.

> What about {le ka ci le ce'u prenu cu klama}?

I don't know what that means, if anything; arguably it should be made
ungrammatical.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.