[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable



* Wednesday, 2011-09-07 at 23:42 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:

> * Wednesday, 2011-09-07 at 23:58 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > > * Wednesday, 2011-09-07 at 21:47 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > But functions don't have scope either, it is quantifiers that have
> > scope. If a function happens to take a bound variable as an argument,
> > then its value will be determined within the scope of the quantifier
> > that binds that variable, yes.
> 
> I think this is just different language for the same thing - i.e. you're
> Skolemising away the existential quantifiers
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skolem_normal_form).

(...which I agree is the right thing to do if we want to get at the idea
that the speaker has, to some degree or other, a specific
constant/function in mind)

Attachment: pgpbuoWArKEZS.pgp
Description: PGP signature