Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta)

[i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

di'e mixre da pe mi ge'u ce lo terspu be da bei la kau,n.

> > > That leads to a tangent.  One of my rules was in error.  A
> > > variable appearing a second time with a quantifier doesn't cause
 rebinding,
> > > as I earlier stated.  Instead, it has the normal behavior of a sumti
> > > quantifier: it selects.  So "ro da poi broda cu klama pa da" means
> > > "all thingummies go to one particular thingummy", because "pa da" means
> > > "one of the {da}s" when "da" is already bound (analogously to "pa do" =
 "one
> > > of you").
> >
> > And this is consistent with a subsequent restrictive clause selecting
> > a subset.

> It does and it doesn't, because in the context "da poi ... da" the second
> use of "da" has been restricted by the "poi".  So "poi" really sets a
> domain, rather than selecting a subset. "ro da poi" = "all-of those-things
> in-domain".

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between setting
a domain and selecting a subset - "all-of those-things in-domain" is
a subset of "all-of those-things".

> > >         ro da poi broda de vau ro de poi brode de zo'u da brodi de
...
> But if forward reference is not possible, then the first occurrence of "de"
> has scope forward from just after the first "poi", leading to the reading:

>         All X's which foogle some Ys snorgle all of >those same< Y's which
>                 zarkify the X in question.

> In order words, the "ro de" selects all of the {su'o} referents implicit
> in the first appearance of "de".

Exactly.

> This is a very different reading, which is not itself a problem, but I don't
> see how to get back to the recursively-scoped reading (misreading) of my
> previous message: i.e., how is that mess expressed in Lojban?
[
>         All X's which foogle a Y (every Y?) snorgle all Y's which
>                 zarkify an X (every X?)
]

Well, part of the problem is that it is enough of a mess that it's not
clear what it means, which makes it difficult to translate. :)

Ignoring the bits in brackets, it suggests to me something like

    ro da poi broda ku'o ro de poi brode zo'u:
    da brodi lo brode .ije[bo] de brodu lo broda .inaja da brodo de

where the X's and Y's are broda's and brode's rather than da's and de's.
I don't think this is what you were getting at, but I don't have any
better ideas at the moment.

> Overall conclusion: talking with pc is now a must.

Good idea.

mi'e .i,n.