From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Oct 12 19:17:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 13 Oct 2001 02:17:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 8070 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2001 02:17:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 13 Oct 2001 02:17:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.182) by mta3 with SMTP; 13 Oct 2001 02:17:31 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:17:30 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.55 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:17:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.55] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] pc's webpage Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:17:30 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Oct 2001 02:17:30.0969 (UTC) FILETIME=[364E7490:01C1538D] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >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 prefer (ii), but I guess (i) would be acceptable. I don't think (iii) can work at all, as it is not difficult to find examples where it breaks down (with negations for instance). Other than that, I have only a minor nitpick: >>This means that apparently simple exchanges like {ko’a broda ko’e} to >>{ko’e se broda ko’a} cannot be carried out for quantified >>expressions, since the order of the quantifiers would change, which will >>usually change meaning as well. I think {ko'a broda ko'e} can always be changed to {ko'e se broda ko'a} without any trouble. If {ko'a} has an implicit quantifier it is {ro}, so no conflict appears there. The transformation that cannot always be done is { broda } into { se broda }. {ko'a} cannot stand for . It refers to some object, it does not stand for an expression. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp