Date:  Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:53:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711211853.NAA22033@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: singular/plural (was: Re: veridicality in English)
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 694
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 21 13:54:23 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Jorge:
> la and la lojbab na'e darno le ka tugni
> >It looks like we're not far from agreeing.
> >
> >We agree that {le pa} and {lei} are scope-insensitive.
>
> Right.
>
> >{pa lo} and {loi} are not sensitive to scope relative to other
> >existential quantifiers (I think),
>
> {[su'o] lo} and {[pisu'o] loi} are not sensitive to scope relative
> to other existentials. But {pa lo} is a different story:
>
>      lo prenu cu prami pa lo prenu
>      There is at least one person that loves exactly one person.
>      [TRUE]
>
>     pa lo prenu cu se prami lo prenu
>     There is exactly one person that is loved by at least one person.
>     [FALSE]

Bugger: I was betrayed by Goatleg.

--And