Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

And:
> What are the properties of {zo'e}? I thought it was that it could be
> equivalent to {da} or to {keha}; I didn't realize it had extra magic.

I think {zo'e} does have extra magic, but I'm not sure.

In any case, I have reconsidered the case of general quantifiers
and I'm now inclined to take your view, which really does seem much
more intuitive. Some examples:

(1)     so'i prenu cu klama so'i da
        Many people go to many places.

(2)     so'i da se klama so'i prenu
        Many places are gone to by many people.


In English, those two mean different things. The most natural
meaning (I think) is: for (1) that each of many people goes to
many places, but since everybody can go to different places,
each place might be gone to by very few people; and for (2)
that each of many places are gone to by many people, but each
person maybe goes to one place only.

What do they mean in Lojban? That depends on how are general
quantifiers to be interpreted.

I thought {re prenu} was to be interpreted as: "There exists
an x that is a person and there exists a y that is a person
and x is not equal to y:" and whatever was claimed was claimed
for x and for y.

But I think And's interpretation is better: "There is a set
of two persons, such that for every x of that set:" whatever.

(Actually, it has to be supplemented by "and no set of
more than two persons", if the exactness of numbers is to be
preserved.)

This would mean that general quantifiers (almost anything except
{ro} and {su'opa}), really hide one existential and one
universal quantifier, rather than some indefinite number of
existential ones. This causes (1) and (2) to mean different
things. But if they were to mean the same thing, it would
be that each of the many persons goes to each of many places,
which is not the most useful meaning.

I couldn't find a single example with more than one general
quantifier in the reference grammar, so I don't know if there
really is a policy on this. My impresion was that they were
supposed to be generalized existentials, but I may well be
wrong. I better let John answer.

Jorge