From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Fri Oct 12 18:18:42 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 13 Oct 2001 01:18:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 71940 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2001 01:13:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Oct 2001 01:13:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Oct 2001 01:13:31 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.4]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011012231140.JPKM29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:11:40 +0100 To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" Subject: pc's webpage Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 00:10:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" All very clear. There are a few things I'd query: 1. "It is certain that the scope ends at the next {ni’o} or {da’o}; it probably ends at the next undecorated {i}." Mark made a widely well-received proposal that single {da'o} evacuates only the preceding anaphor/variable/name, while {da'o da'o} evacuates all. 2. "On the other hand, occurrences of a bound variable that are clearly in the scope of a quantifier may be rebound by another explicit quantifier, keeping more or less the same reference: {ci da zo’u da nanmu gi’e nenri klama le barja ije re da zutse} “Three men come into a bar and two of them sit,” where the second quantifier on {da} works within the limits of the groups selected by the first. A quantifier in Lojban cannot be recycled within the scope of a quantifier on that same variable." I believe the ban on recycling -- which is better-formulated here than I saw it formulated in list discussion -- was a recent proposal rather than part of established canon. In discussion, a range of views were put forward: (i) Requantification recycles the variable (as if it were {da da'o}) as if it were being used for the first time. (ii) Requantification recycles the variable but earlier restrictions on the variable are not cancelled, so {ci da poi gerku zo'u ge da cliva gi re da bacru} means "two dogs barked" rather than "two of the dogs barked", and {ci da poi gerku zo'u ge da cliva gi re da poi xekri cu bacru} means "two black dogs", and not just "two black things". I suppose the restriction would stay in force until the next {da da'o} or {da'o da'o}. (iii) Requantification is over the individuals picked out by the initial quantification (as per your [pc's] text). I think the choice among these (and other possible alternatives) has yet to be agreed on. 3. "The bridi negation {na} is always logically to the left of even the quantifiers in the prenex, so again it is useful to check whether you have negated the right form when a negation occurs." Perhaps this is said in the book, but at least in the Lojban internalized by me, prenex has scope over the rest of the bridi. --And.