From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Fri Mar 29 23:00:36 1996
Received: from punt4.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP
	id AA11121 ; Fri, 29 Mar 96 23:00:34 GMT
Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
          id 828123554:24292:3; Fri, 29 Mar 96 18:19:14 GMT
Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net
          id aa24074; 29 Mar 96 18:18 GMT
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3)
   with BSMTP id 3135; Fri, 29 Mar 96 13:18:12 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 7984; Fri, 29 Mar 96 13:18:49 EDT
Date:         Fri, 29 Mar 1996 18:17:52 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: CHANGE 46
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Message-ID: <828123519.24074.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
Status: R


pc to me to John
> > > The other problem is that of indicating that two numerically
> > > quantified sumti have co-equal scope:
> > > ci nanmu re gerku cu batci
> > > says that three men bite two dogs each, for a possible total of six
> > > dogs, whereas
> > > ci nanmu ce'e re gerku cu batci
> > > nu'i ci nanmu re gerku nu'u cu batci
> > > says that three men bite two dogs each, the same two dogs.
> > I presume this is not supposed to be a general solution, and your
> > ci broda vs. ci lo broda solution still stands. cee/nui wouldn't
> > work for {troci fa ci nanmu loi nunbatci be voa bei re (lo) gerku},
> > would it?
> Will someone explain to me again (?) how the ci broda/ci lo broda
> distinction solves the branching quantifier problem and, assuming it does,
> how that fits in with the other use of these contrasting forms to deal
> with existential import questions.  Presumably, the clumping device will
> alweays work in prenexes to cover the mixed bag asked about.  Of
> course, an afterthought form would be nice even then (or when you have
> committed to terms in "normal" rather than clumped, as in the original
> problem).

John's solution to the "branching quantifier" problem was that {ci broda}
always gets nonbranching interp, and {ci lo broda} gets branching interp.

The interaction with the existential import question is as follows.
Before the ex.import matter arose, {ci broda} and {lo broda} were held
to be equivalent to {da poi broda}. But now that {da poi} has been clarified
as restricted quantification, and we have it on your authority that
Ax entails Ex, that {pa/lo broda}={da poi broda} equivalence is called
into question. I proposed that the equivalence be dropped, and instead
{pa/lo broda} should be equivalent to a formulation with unrestricted
quantification. There has been no ruling on this.

As for prenexes, we appear to already have had a way to do "branching"
in prenexes (i.e. Jorge's suggestion of using connectives in prenex).
The problem was always the afterthought way. Jorge had also made a
suggestion for that too, the details of which I forget, although it was
a good idea, but this was never taken up.
---
And