Re: 3 dogs, 2 men, many arguments

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la xod cusku di'e

>The meaning of "ci gerku cu batci re nanmu" is taken to mean
>"each of three dogs bite two men", leaving the number of men not
>necessarily 2 but any value between and including 2 and 6. The
>result is that the 2 is taken less literally than the 3 because it is
>declared later.

I wouldn't say less literally. What happens is that the 2 has
in this case a narrower scope than the 3, because it is
declared later.

Number quantifiers can be understood in terms of the more
basic existential and universal quantifiers. For example,
2x: F(x) could be rewritten as Ex Ey: x<>y & F(x) & F(y).

This expansion will always involve both existential and
universal quantifiers (here the universal is in the form
of &). The order in which these quantifiers appear is
what determines their scope.

There are many ways in which 3x 2y F(x,y) could have
been given meaning. The one chosen is to take it as
3x G(x),  where G(x) = 2y F(x,y), and there we can see
why the scope of the second quantifier is narrower.

The way you propose would involve having a separate
expansion for the quantification (3x 2y) that could not be
reduced to the single variable case.

co'o mi'e xorxes