From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Mar 12 11:21:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 19:21:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 76385 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 19:20:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 19:20:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 19:20:43 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:53:51 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:20:53 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:20:24 +0000 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810630 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin pc: #Admittedly, then, in an ideal xorxes system my rules would be a whole step= =20 #more complicated. I think that extra effort is worth it to be able to tel= l=20 #at a glance that a setence has existential import.=20 I can't quite see why this thread is continuing. PC & Jorge seem to understand each other and to agree to differ, and the messages seem to be getting repetitive. Is the goal just to provide the basis for a wiki record that can guide the usage of those who care to be guided? Or are we invited to express our preferences? I prefer Jorge's version, because (a) it matches the dialect I've always had, in several important ways (preserving equivalence of lo & su'o da, treatment of 'inner quantifiers'), and (b) the contexts in which existential import is relevant are sufficiently rare and special that they justify the relatively explicit and unordinary marking that Jorge's system would give them. --And.