Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:05:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199801311905.OAA17951@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: Re: fuzzy bears X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <886006354.10311.0@listserv.cuny.edu> X-UIDL: ffb8d8b473586520a70a59a948099fe3 Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Feb 02 14:27:16 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - vecu'u le notci po'u <886006354.10311.0@listserv.cuny.edu> la Rick Nylander cu cusku di'e ... > >Actually my question was simpler, and different, than that. I was just >asking if _outer_ quantifiers get absorbed. Sorry to waste your time, >as it only just occurred to me to run it through the parser to see if >{ci lo cribe ku goi ko'a} makes ko'a refer to 3 bears, or just bears. >Answer: ko'a refers to 3 bears. (I assume the parser is considered >accurate in things like binding of such expressions.) No, it is not. I have several times advanced arguments on based on how the parser (and indeed the syntax definition) groups structures, and been roundly told that such grouping does not necessarily imply that the semantics follows the same grouping. This obviously makes sense in cases where a grouping is imposed for reasons of practicality (eg recursive lists end up onion-shaped), but I've been unsatisfied with the extension of the argument to cases such as yours. But that seems to be how things are at present. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Colin Fine 66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK | | Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354 e-mail: colin@kindness.demon.co.uk | | "Don't just do something! Stand there!" | | - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop) | -----------------------------------------------------------------------