* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 21:04 -0500 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> * Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 17:40 -0600 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>
> > On Nov 26, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see why it should be even when the description doesn't
> > > explicitly mention bound variables; e.g. why {ro verba cu prami le
> > > mamta} shouldn't be a reasonable abbreviation of {ro verba cu prami le
> > > mamta be ri}, or why in {pu je ba ku mi'o jinga fi le bradi} we
> > > should have {le bradi} getting the same referents both times.
> >
> > It is a linguistic precondition of the collapse of parallel sentences
> > marked by {je}.
>
> I suppose it just seems odd to me that we don't allow the unfilled x2 of
> mamta in {ro da poi verba cu prami le mamta} to refer to da.
Actually, I've changed my mind. There's a very good reason to disallow
it. Having the listener glork even a constant is difficult enough;
it would quickly get ridiculous if we had them having to glork a skolem
function with domain the product of the domains of all quantifiers
(including tense quantifiers) the description sumti appears in the scope
of.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpvg3KUYzoK5.pgp
Description: PGP signature