From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 26 17:48:01 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_3); 27 Sep 2000 00:48:01 -0000
Received: (qmail 2722 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2000 00:48:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 27 Sep 2000 00:48:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r12.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.66) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2000 00:48:01 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id a.63.b99543d (2618) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:47:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <63.b99543d.27029db9@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:47:53 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Get Much Ca$h !
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41
From: pycyn@aol.com

In a message dated 00-09-26 19:30:09 EDT, you write:

<< >roda nirna roda
>roda se nirna roda
>roda selnirna roda
>roda roda selnirna

It is not clear what is the effect of quantifying the
same variable twice in the same sentence. Either the
second {da} has to be taken as a new variable, saying
that each thing is a nerve/neuron of each thing, or the
second quantifier has to be ignored, saying that each
thing is a nerve/neuron of itself. >>

In standard logic, it would be the second. However, in standard logic, both 
of these would be prenex and so both of the {da}s would be in the scope of 
both quantifiers and thus of the second, to which the pair qwould then 
reduce. So the result would be the second version.
Now, in Lojban. ...