From reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Sun Oct 31 15:43:40 1999
X-Digest-Num: 272
Message-ID: <44114.272.1513.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:43:40 -0700 (MST)
From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Subject: Re: 3 dogs, 2 men, many arguments


la xorxes. pu ciska di'e

> But "ro da broda de" is not the same as
> "de se broda ro da". The first one is
> "ro da de zo'u da broda de", and the second one
> is "de ro da zo'u da broda de".
> 
> What you are arguing is that they both should mean
> "de ro da zo'u da broda de". In other words, you
> want that when the variables are not explicitly
> quatified in the prenex, their quantification
> should be existentials first, universals second.

I should let xod speak for hirself, but I had gathered that actually what
was intended was that they both should mean "de ro da zo'u da broda de
.ije ro da de zo'u da broda de", and that both of *those* bridi mean the
same thing as well. The current meaning of "de ro da zo'u da broda de"
would be expressed using a mapping cmavo between de and ro da.

Or maybe I misunderstood completely :).

co'omi'e xarmuj.