Re: quantifiers on sumti - late response

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

Jorge:
> > 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").
> My way of saying that would be:
>         so'i da e so'i de zo'u: da klama de
>         For many x and many y: x goes to y
> The {e} makes sure that the scope of both {so'i}s is the same.
> You are forced to use the prenex, but it is a rather abstruse
> meaning anyway.

Okay.

> > 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?
> I don't like it, because you can't make the distinction in the prenex
> or in {da} notation.

Okay. Consider my proposal withdrawn. I go along with your proposal.

---
And