* Sunday, 2011-12-04 at 21:41 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >> There are two separate issues to consider: (1) Where is the binding
> >> quantifier when an expression contains apparently unbound variables?
> >> (2) What is the scope of an explicit quantifier which is not presented
> >> in prenex form?
> >> [...]
> >> Question (1) may admit more than one reasonable answer. The simplest
> >> answer seems to be that the elided "su'o" is right in front of the
> >> first instance of the apparently unbound variable, with scope as in
> >> (2), and any instance outside that scope will require new binding.
> >> Another perhaps reasonable answer might be that the elided "su'o" has
> >> scope wide enough to capture as many instances of the apparently
> >> unbound variable as possible. I don't find it so reasonable that there
> >> be no possible place to make "su'o" explicit in the expression as
> >> presented.
> >
> > I can see that. To be clear (because given your example at the top, I'm
> > not sure we already have clarity), I'm effectively disputing this only
> > in very rare edge cases - those of the form {[PA] da .A ko'a da}, and
> > those of the form {GA [PA] da broda gi brode vau da}. I doubt the
> > designers had these cases in mind.
> >
> > In both cases, the issue is that the "simplest answer" you mention
> > doesn't give an answer - I would replace the indicated "[PA]" with
> > {su'o} if it's empty, but then there's no answer to the question of
> > whether the second {da} is in the scope of the first. So should it also
> > get a {su'o} and hence be rebound on both arms of the connective?
>
> Of course.
>
> > Or only on one? I don't see that there's an obviously-correct
> > answer.
>
> If you have two things being connected, each of the things is under
> the scope of the connective. I see no good reason for the semantics to
> go against the syntax here.
I don't understand.
The question I had in mind is whether
{ge broda ro da gi brode vau da} is equivalent to
(i) {ge broda ro da gi brode vau su'o da} ==
{ge ro da su'o de zo'u broda da de gi su'o da zo'u brode da}
or to
(ii) {ge broda ro da da gi brode da} ==
{ge ro da zo'u broda da da gi su'o da zo'u brode da}
; I understand you as advocating (i) and declaring (ii) to be obviously
wrong, but I don't understand why you consider (ii) to be going against
the syntax.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpVDNRUs6nue.pgp
Description: PGP signature