Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tCwgv-0000ZTC; Wed, 8 Nov 95 00:40 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id E1EA3F79 ; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 23:40:28 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 20:03:20 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: bal}Nirely, three dogs, on the web X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1286 Lines: 26 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.