Subject: Re: [lojban] pc's webpage

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 10:48:50 EDT

In a message dated 10/12/2001 8:29:45 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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.
> 

Yes, and I like it. It is not yet doctrine, however.

<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.  Aquantifier 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 tobe
agreed on.>

Again, I have a lot of sympathy with some of these proposals -- especially 
the simple recycling one (as in Logic), but the official doctrine is as I 
describe it, 16.14 (410).

<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.>

16.9 (401) ff and especially 16.11 (405) x11.1-4