From pycyn@aol.com Sun Oct 14 07:49:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 14 Oct 2001 14:49:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 38613 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2001 14:49:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 14 Oct 2001 14:49:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta3 with SMTP; 14 Oct 2001 14:49:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.158.273a615 (18709) for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <158.273a615.28faffd2@aol.com> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:48:50 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] pc's webpage To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_158.273a615.28faffd2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11567 --part1_158.273a615.28faffd2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 10/12/2001 8:29:45 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > 1. "It is certain that the scope ends at the next {ni=E2=80=99o} or {da= =E2=80=99o}; it > probably ends at the next undecorated {i}." >=20 > Mark made a widely well-received proposal that single {da'o} evacuates > only the preceding anaphor/variable/name, while {da'o da'o} evacuates > all. >=20 Yes, and I like it. It is not yet doctrine, however. <2. "On the other hand, occurrences of a bound variable that are clearly in =C2=A0=C2=A0 the scope of a quantifier may be rebound by another explicit =C2=A0=C2=A0 quantifier, keeping more or less the same reference: {ci da zo= =E2=80=99u da =C2=A0=C2=A0 nanmu gi=E2=80=99e nenri klama le barja ije re da zutse} =E2= =80=9CThree men come into a =C2=A0=C2=A0 bar and two of them sit,=E2=80=9D=C2=A0 where the second quant= ifier on {da} works =C2=A0=C2=A0 within the limits of the groups selected by the first.=C2=A0 A= quantifier in =C2=A0=C2=A0 Lojban cannot be recycled within the scope of a quantifier on = that same =C2=A0=C2=A0 variable." I believe the ban on recycling -- which is better-formulated here than I saw it formulated in list discussion -- was a recent proposal rather than p= art of established canon. In discussion, a range of views were put forward: (i) Requantification recycles the variable (as if it were {da da'o}) as if it were being used for the first time. (ii) Requantification recycles the variable but earlier restrictions on the variable are not cancelled, so =C2=A0 {ci da poi gerku zo'u ge da cliva gi re da bacru} means "two dogs barked" rather than "two of the dogs barked", and =C2=A0 {ci da poi gerku zo'u ge da cliva gi re da poi xekri cu bacru} means "two black dogs", and not just "two black things". I suppose the restriction would stay in force until the next {da da'o} or {da'o da'o}. (iii) Requantification is over the individuals picked out by the initial quantification (as per your [pc's] text). I think the choice among these (and other possible alternatives) has yet to= be agreed on.> Again, I have a lot of sympathy with some of these proposals -- especially= =20 the simple recycling one (as in Logic), but the official doctrine is as I=20 describe it, 16.14 (410). <3. "The bridi negation {na} is always logically to the left of even the =C2=A0=C2=A0 quantifiers in the prenex, so again it is useful to check whet= her you =C2=A0=C2=A0 have negated the right form when a negation occurs." Perhaps this is said in the book, but at least in the Lojban internalized b= y=20 me, prenex has scope over the rest of the bridi.> 16.9 (401) ff and especially 16.11 (405) x11.1-4 --part1_158.273a615.28faffd2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en In a message dated 10/12/2001 8:29:45 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@n= tlworld.com writes:

1. "It is certain that th= e scope ends at the next {ni=E2=80=99o} or {da=E2=80=99o}; it
probably ends at the next undecorated {i}."

Mark made a widely well-received proposal that single {da'o} evacuates
only the preceding anaphor/variable/name, while {da'o da'o} evacuates
all.

Yes, and I like it. It is not yet doctrine, however.

<2. "On the other hand, occurrences of a bound variable that are cle= arly in
=C2=A0=C2=A0 the scope of a quantifier may be rebound by another explic= it
=C2=A0=C2=A0 quantifier, keeping more or less the same reference: {ci d= a zo=E2=80=99u da
=C2=A0=C2=A0 nanmu gi=E2=80=99e nenri klama le barja ije re da zutse} = =E2=80=9CThree men come into a
=C2=A0=C2=A0 bar and two of them sit,=E2=80=9D=C2=A0 where the second q= uantifier on {da} works
=C2=A0=C2=A0 within the limits of the groups selected by the first.=C2= =A0 A quantifier in
=C2=A0=C2=A0 Lojban cannot be recycled within the scope of a quantifier= on that same
=C2=A0=C2=A0 variable."

I believe the ban on recycling -- which is better-formulated here than = I
saw it formulated in list discussion -- was a recent proposal rather th= an part
of established canon. In discussion, a range of views were put
forward:

(i) Requantification recycles the variable (as if it were {da da'o}) as= if
it were being used for the first time.

(ii) Requantification recycles the variable but earlier restrictions on
the variable are not cancelled, so
=C2=A0 {ci da poi gerku zo'u ge da cliva gi re da bacru}
means "two dogs barked" rather than "two of the dogs barked", and
=C2=A0 {ci da poi gerku zo'u ge da cliva gi re da poi xekri cu bacru}
means "two black dogs", and not just "two black things".
I suppose the restriction would stay in force until the next {da da'o}
or {da'o da'o}.

(iii) Requantification is over the individuals picked out by the initia= l
quantification (as per your [pc's] text).

I think the choice among these (and other possible alternatives) has ye= t to be
agreed on.>

Again, I have a lot of sympathy with some of these proposals -- especia= lly the simple recycling one (as in Logic), but the official doctrine is as= I describe it, 16.14 (410).

<3. "The bridi negation {na} is always logically to the left of even= the
=C2=A0=C2=A0 quantifiers in the prenex, so again it is useful to check = whether you
=C2=A0=C2=A0 have negated the right form when a negation occurs."
Perhaps this is said in the book, but at least in the Lojban internaliz= ed by me,
prenex has scope over the rest of the bridi.>

16.9 (401) ff and especially 16.11 (405) x11.1-4

--part1_158.273a615.28faffd2_boundary--