Re: proposed quant. scope cmavo: xu'u

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

Chris:
> I haven't been following this completely thoroughly, so it may be
> irrelevant or redundant.  I especially agree with And that the whole
> matter of quantifier scope in afterthought form ought to be looked at
> all at once, rather than patched together piecemeal with new cmavo; but
> it's an interesting idea...
> It looks to me like the three/nine dog problem is that there's no way,
> even in the prenex, to indicate that two quantified variables exist at
> the same scope.
> But I don't know how to say:
>    "E3x,3y, x is a man, y is a dog, SUCH THAT x bites y"
>    (i.e. there are three men and three dogs, and each man bites each dog)

Jorge suggested

    ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zohu da batci de

So there is a way to do it in the prenex.

> I hate to suggest this, being a general opponent of cmavo proliferation,
> but:
> If we have to add a cmavo, how about a "non-such-that" cmavo (what's
> left... xu'u?).

I agree with you that afterthought devices (including one to do this
job) are desirable, and that they shouldn't be introduced piecemeal.

I've written a short discussion paper on afterthought scope which I hope
could serve as the basis for further discussion.

---
And