From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:59:03 2010 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Apr 01 17:11:04 1996 X-UIDL: 828384046.000 From: ucleaar Subject: Re: change 46 To: lojban list Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1265 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Apr 01 17:11:04 1996 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: pc > And there would be a conflict if we wanted to use the q/q lo > distinction as a general afterthought device, with "all," particularly. Surely that would overload the distinction. > So we do not seem to have a general afterthought brancher yet, > even with John's new device. I don't see why? Where does q/q lo fail to work? > Or, of course, we can do without any short form for restricted > quantification (or unrestricted, but I don't see that option getting > very far) and use the q/q lo distinction just for the the branching > problem. That's what I'd favour. > And now for the theoretical question: how do we deal with quantifiers > that branch relative to some other but not to all? In prenex, John's > device can handle these to just about any level of complexity that I > have found, but none of the devices seems to work regularly with > unclumped sumti in afterthought mode. Nor would any of the leaper > devices, come to that. Afterthought is kind of like an added bonus. Lojban has no duty to provide it, but where feasible it is provided as a favour to users. To get decent general purpose afterthought methods for scope I guess the design of Lojlan would have to have begun with scope structure rather than predicate structure. --- And