Re: proposed quant. scope cmavo: xu'u

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

I said:
>> 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 replies:
>In the prenex it can be done with {e}:
>
>With {e} the two quantifiers must be at the same level. For example, in:
>
>the two cats are not selected for each of the dogs. The four animals
>are selected at the same level.

OK, I wondered if that might work.  It does seem kind of weird, since I
thought you could split .e-joined things into two sentences:

       ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zo'u: da batci de

ought to resolve to:

       ci da poi nanmu zo'u: da batci de .ije ci de poi gerku zo'u: da batci de

Or is the .e resolution different in the prenex?


>In afterthought, it can be done if non-outermost quantifiers are to be
>understood as having widest scope. Then in that case:

Ah, some of the conversation I wasn't getting just 'clicked'.  Probably a
better solution than my proposal.

>> If we have to add a cmavo, how about a "non-such-that" cmavo (what's left...
>> xu'u?).  Most of the time, you'd assume that between two existential
>> quantifiers there was a "such that", getting the up-to-9-dog interpretation.
>
>As an aside, there already is a "such-that" cmavo, namely {zo'u}. It is
>grammatical to write:

Cool, I didn't realize you could use zo'u more than once.

If you agreed that ".e" causes problems in the prenex as I described, maybe
"zo'unai" could serve that function?

>I'm happy with {ci nanmu cu batci ri} (themselves) and {ci nanmu cu batci
>ro ri} (themselves and each other). This gives even more plausibility to
>{xu'u} = {ro}.

I don't understand how that works.  With "ri" alone, why do we know they are
each biting only themselves and not each other -- or is it merely a
convenient convention?  And you seemed to imply in our lojban conversation
about cteki that "vo'a" in the same place has a different effect.  mi cfipu.

However I'm de-cfipued enough to withdraw my poor little xu'u.