Subject: [lojban] za'e "postnex"

From: Martin Bays <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 18:28:01 +0000 (GMT)

Is there a nice way to quantify over variables "in afterthought"?

It's the kind of thing you see in (informal) mathematics all the time -
it's often natural to assume your variables are arbitrary when you write
the main formula, and only afterwards think to put in the "for all x". So
you might have, say "n[sub]i > 0 (all i in N)".

So is there an elegant way to translate this kind of thing into lojban?
The best I can think of is

{ny. boi xi .ibu zmadu li no .i na go'i .i ro da poi kacna'u zi'e goi .ibu
zo'u go'i}

which is really ugly.

Relatedly - is my use there of goi there, assigning .ibu to an existential
variable, legit? I can't seem to find a good reference.

Also relatedly - is there a good reason why you can't use a prenex in a
jek/joik connected subsentence? (This is just me being peeved that my
first attempt at the above sentence, using {.inaje}, was rejected) I see
how it follows from the EBNF grammar, but I was just wondering why it was
decided to be that way.

Thanks

---

#^t'm::>#shs>:#,_$1+9j9"^>h>" < v
:>8*0\j" o'u" v" e'i" v".neta"^q>
;z,[; > > ^