From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Mon Apr 01 23:41:53 1996 Received: from punt.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA11170 ; Mon, 01 Apr 96 23:41:45 BST Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 828378865:26493:1; Mon, 01 Apr 96 18:14:25 BST Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa25981; 1 Apr 96 18:13 +0100 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 1265; Mon, 01 Apr 96 12:10:12 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0033; Mon, 01 Apr 96 12:10:31 EDT Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:08:38 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: change 46 X-To: lojban list To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <828378818.25981.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R 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