Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

[ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>]

Jorge:
> 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.
> 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.

Me too.

> 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 of course agree. BUT we must make sure we won't be lacking a simple
grammatical means to say:

   There is a set, X, and there is a set, Y, such that for
     every V, V in X, and for every W, W in Y, V goes to W.

(= your "each of many people goes to each of many places").

I tentatively propose that, slightly contrary to what you suggest,
this should be the meaning of

> (1)     so'i prenu cu klama so'i da
> (2)     so'i da se klama so'i prenu

While "For each of many people there are many places that they go to"
should be:

    sohi lo prenu cu klama sohi da
    (= ro lo sohi lo prenu)

That is, {lo broda} is equivalent not to {suho lo [suho] broda} (or to
{da poi broda}) but to {ro lo suho lo [suho] broda}, while {suho broda}
is still equivalent to {suho da poi broda}.

What do people reckon to this?

---
And