conversion and quantifiers - Lojbab backs down

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

>Your rule above would mean they both mean the latter, not the former!
>In any case, {se broda} is always the same selbri as {broda}, all that
>changes is the order of the arguments. The way the scopes interact is
>important to determine the meaning of the bridi. The order in which
>the quantifiers appear is the basic rule to determine quantifier scope.
>Therefore, the same selbri can give bridi with different meanings,
>depending on the order in which the arguments appear.

>I think scope determined by sumti number is the worse possible choice.
>Working out what a sentence means on the fly if the arguments are out of
>the normal order would become a nightmare.  Not to mention the big
>difference that might arise between saying {se broda} and {selbroda}.
>What would be the advantage of having scope determined by sumti number?

Both Cowan and Nora have disagreed with me, with Nora citing the same
arguments you did, as well as the definition of "le" as picking up the
x1 of "se broda" in "le se broda", and I bow to their opinion and memory
of prior decisions.  The x1 of "se broda" is the x2 of broda, and place
renumbering does occur.

>> ro remna cu se stedu pa stedu
>>
>> seems to mean either that every human has the same head, or that every
>> human has one head, depending on whether quantifier order is based on
>> sumti order or not.
>
>Exactly.  I understand it to mean that each human has exactly one head,
>not necessarily the same one.  The sumti number rule would say that the
>same head is head of every human.

Obviously given the above, the "sumti number rule" is invalid.

I will address quantifier ordering in another post.

lojbab