Re: pc answers

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

pc:
>  _ci da poi nanmu ci de poi gerku [whatever the hell the prenex comma
>   is] da pencu de_
>  or maybe even _ci nanmu ci gerku [comma] ny pencu gy_ .
>  Or maybe even _[leaper] ci nanmu cu pencu [leaper] ci gerku_

I don't understand why these should be different from {ci nanmu
cu pencu ci gerku}. I would rather hope they're not different, and
that they all have the nine-dog reading. I am happier with Jorge's
{ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zohu da pencu de} for the
three dog reading. And I'd expect {ci nanmu cu pencu [leaper]
ci gerku} to give a 3-dog, 9-man reading, with or without a
leaper before {ci nanmu}.

Jorge:
> > >        ro lo ci lo nanmu cu pencu ro lo ci lo gerku
> > >        Each of three of all men touch each of three of all dogs.
> > I don't get that as necessarily distinct from pc's second reading.
> > That is, why should it be
> >   There's a cimei of men, and there's a cimei of dogs, such that
> >   each member of the man cimei touches each member of the dog
> >   cimei
> > rather than
> >   There's a cimei of men, such that for each m, m a member of the
> >   man cimei, there's a cimei of dogs, such that m touches each
> >   member of the dog cimei
> > ?
> Yes, it could be defined either way. I was thinking that the outer
> quantifiers are nested in order of appearance and the inner ones
> are independent. This seems to make sense to me, and allows
> relatively simple forms for both the three dog and the nine dog
> cases.

I'm not clear what the logical forms would be under the version
you were entertaining. I take it that by "inner quantifier" you
don't mean "innermost", since everyone is agreed that the innermost
quantifier of {ci broda} is {ro} - {ci lo ro broda}.

If you do explain your version, could you also confirm that it
covers {le ci nanmu cu pencu ci gerku} (which has the 3-dog/9-dog
alternatives)?

> > I recall you saying that the solution was something approximately
> > resembling
> >   ci da poi nanmu e ci de poi gerku zohu da pencu de
> I still think that works well, too.

Me too.

> > I find that a better solution, but since it requires forethought,
> > and since I agree with pc that everything should have an alternative
> > afterthought mode of expression, I also think that pc is right
> > to think that a new cmavo might be useful to signal parallel
> > scope, i.e.
> >    Ev, v a cimei, Ew, w a cimei, Ax, x in v, Ay, y in w: x pencu y
> > instead of what we seem to be agreeing should be the default:
> >    Ev, v a cimei, Ax, x in v: Ew, w a cimei, Ay, y in w: x pencu y
> Just as a reminder, these violate the goatleg rule. They would be
> the two possibilities for {su'oci remna cu pencu su'oci gerku}.
> The goatleg rule complicates matters somewhat. On top of the
> existence of the cimei, uniqueness is also needed. But this is another
> issue, mostly orthogonal to the one we are discussing.

Could you remind me why (or whether) {ci nanmu cu pencu ci gerku}
doesn't violate goatleg?

> > The new cmavo would signal that that the second existential quantifier
> > precedes the first universal quantifier, or, in different words, that
> > the existential quantifier (for the mei) in the sumti marked by that
> > cmavo scopes before the last universal quantifier (for the cmima) in
> > the logical form so far.
> I'm not 100% against, but I don't know. I would have to see how the
> actual cmavo works in different sentences, what happens when there
> is a third quantification, and so on.

Yes. It is better to have some complete system of afterthought scope
rather than ad hoc patches.

> > I would like to add that I think these afterthought cmavo should be
> > adopted as part of a more general programme to provide general purpose
> > methods of afterthought scope.
> It would certainly be interesting to work out what is or is not missing
> in this respect. Do you have any ideas about a general scheme?

No. I don't even have the glimmer of a beginning of an idea. If I
think how Livagian does it, and then apply that to Lojban, I think
it would mean numerous cmavo in GOI - {GOI KOhA} - with these cmavo
indicating various scope relationships between their "arguments".

But at this stage I would simply like to establish and get general
agreement that Lojban ought to have a comprehensive method of doing
afterthought scope. For me the upshot of The Any Debate was that there
is such a need.

---
And