Re: ci stedu, and a new dumb idea on quantifiers for people to tear up

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>> Advantages of all this:
>>
>> 1) It reduces all explicit quantifiers on lo/indefinites to either
>> "pa/piro" or "ro" as the outermost quantifier, which I think removes the
>> scope/order question.
>
>Not completely. I hope you agree that {ro lo prenu cu prami lo prenu} means
>something different than {lo prenu cu se prami ro lo prenu}.

I assume you mean "pa prenu" vs. "lo prenu" if you are even TRYING to get
a straight answer out of me.


But even that won;t work, because at this point, I haven't the vaguest idea
what anything means that involves "lo" since there are so many conflicting
conventions apparetnly in use in the community in the wake of the last
year's debate - that is why I call the whole mess the "any" problem.  "lo"
hhas become an almost perfectly meaningless article to me in the wake of
the debates and I am pretty sure that any stand I take will have some
perfectly valid counterstand taken by you or someone else.

If you had asked the question a year ago and logical scope of quantifiers was
not mentioned as an issue, then I would have said that

{ro lo prenu cu prami lo prenu} and
{lo prenu cu se prami ro lo prenu}
are identical becuase of the symmetry of conversion, and because there are
no explicit bound variables.  ONLY when there was an explicit prenex, use
of "da-series" that implied an explicit prenex, or use of "naku" instead
of "na" would I have conceived that there was any non-symmetry in a
conversion - SE to be acts like "na" at the predicate level and thus supersedes
all scope.

Tonight, I simply throw out ideas and let all you people who didn't flunk
logic class tear them up - the moment a discussion turns to a logical issue,
i defer to pc, and try to extract from HIM whatthe simplest straight answer
tolerated by logic would be.  (By saying "simplest" I sometimes have hopes
of getting pc to actually take a moderately unambiguous stand %^)

lojbab