Re: bits & pieces to Jorge on quantifiers

[jorge@phyast.pitt.edu]

And:
> >  But your recipe gives:
> >        ro lo so'i lo prenu cu klama ro lo so'i lo stuzi
> >        Each of many people go to each of many places.
> Doesn't what my recipe gives make the second {sohi} have scope
> within the first {ro}, given the left to right scope rule?

Now I'm not sure. The left to right rule is only for outer quantifiers,
otherwise the {so'i} would also be within the second {ro}, which
doesn't make any sense. But I'm not sure how intermediate quantifiers
behave. I think the simplest thing is that they be independent, but
I'm not sure.

> > > >               ci remna cu se tuple re tuple
> > > >               3 people have 2 legs?
> > > > vs.
> > > >               re tuple cu tuple ci remna
> > > >               2 legs are legs for 3 people?
> > > First, doesn't the current goatleg ruling mean that these both mean
> > > "there are exactly three people and exactly two legs such that
> > > each leg is leg of each person"? So (a) both mean the same thing,
> > > and (b) both are false.
> > They both mean that under one interpretation. I don't want to call
> > it the traditional interpretation because I'm not sure anyone ever
> > gave this rule. There is nothing about this in the grammar papers.
> The goatleg rule was stated by John very explicitly on this list
> a couple of years ago, in, I think, a discussion with Nick.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about the goatleg rule there. The exactness
of numbers is well established. What is not clear is whether the two
legs (exactly two) should be the same ones for each of the three people
(exactly three), or if we can have exactly two for each of them, but
not necessarily the same ones. What I don't want to call the traditional
interpretation is that they have to be the same two for all three,
because I don't remember seeing that rule anywhere, even though before
this discusssion I thought that was the rule.

> > Unless we want to throw out the goatleg rule with our revision, which
> > I wouldn't really miss,
> I don't like it from a logical point of view, but without it things
> are harder to say. E.g. "Exactly three people left" must be something
> like "There is a set of card 3 such that x in the set *iff* x is
> prenu and x is cliva".

Well, there's always {cisu'eci prenu cu cliva}, three and no more than
three, if you ever need to be that precise.

Jorge