Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

>>> <pycyn@aol.com> 10/30/01 07:06pm >>>
#arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
#> Because the first {da} = {su'o da}, and (pace pc) the quantifier goes to 
#> the prenex of the bridi it occurs in . The su'o can only bind variables 
#> within
#> its scope (= elements following it in the bridi it occurs in), so it cannot 
#> bind variables in following sentences.
#> 
#> If {ije} does indeed allow binding to cross sentence boundaries, then this
#> would require some special rule to get the su'o to have scope over the
#> je. On reflection, I think the default position is that absent any such 
#> special
#
#As I have noted before, there is an ambiguity is "sentence" as applied to 
#Lojban and And is here taking one very narrow -- and generally disastrous -- 
#version (it makes it ahrd to make generalizations for example). And also 
#complicates this by a peculiar rule (which he says everyone uses though 
#everyone else seems to violate it regulalry) about where quantifiers really 
#go. Ignore him or become unable to say very much in normal Lojban. 

I still think that discussion of this "peculiar rule" had best wait until the
Elephant, but in the meantime you could see whether you could 
formulate rules that unambiguously determine quantifier scope for any
... erm ... sentence (replace with better word if you can think of one).
That is, rules that could be written up in a textbook and applied to
novel sentences, ideally by something as mechanical as a computer. 
Then, come the Elephant, those rules could serve as a basis for 
discussion.

--And.