Re: proposed quant. scope cmavo: xu'u

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> {e} groups the two sumti together. {zo'u} splits them appart.
> I think a connective is the right thing to get parallel scope. If not
> {e} then one of the non-logical ones.

I think the right connective in the prenex is "fa'u", since the whole idea
is "Three men A, B, and C touched three dogs a, b, and c respectively.

> > >I'm happy with {ci nanmu cu batci ri} (themselves) and {ci nanmu cu batci
> > >ro ri} (themselves and each other).
> >
> > 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?
>
> It would be a convention, but I think it is the most coherent one.
> (I don't say it is THE convention because I have no idea what is
> or whether there is an official position on this matter.)

It has never been settled, I don't think, whether ri/ra/ru are de dicto
or de re: in other words, does "lo nanmu batci ri" mean "lo nanmu batci vo'a"
(de re) or "lo nanmu batci lo nanmu" (de dicto).  I lean toward the first
interpretation, which is consonant with history.

--
John Cowan                                              cowan@ccil.org
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.