From pycyn@aol.com Thu Jul 26 12:19:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 26 Jul 2001 19:19:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 34339 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2001 19:19:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 26 Jul 2001 19:19:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r06.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.102) by mta2 with SMTP; 26 Jul 2001 19:19:14 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.f2.d4fa426 (4013) for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:19:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:19:02 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Tidying notes on {goi} To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f2.d4fa426.2891c726_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_f2.d4fa426.2891c726_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/26/2001 12:22:42 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > >< > > ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami su'o da > > > >Is that {ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami da}, or is it > >{ro da poi prenu ku'o ro de poi prenu zo'u da prami de}?> > > > >The latter > > I'm relieved to hear that. The second quantifier then > _does_ bind a new variable, only one with the same > poi-restriction as the previous one. > > Then {su'o da poi prenu zo'u da prami su'o da} means > {su'o da poi prenu ku'o su'o de poi prenu zo'u da prami de} > and therefore {su'o da goi la alfas su'o da goi la betas}, > given that there are no poi-restrictions, does mean the same > as {su'o da goi la alfas su'o de goi la betas}. > Well, no. My answer was for the particular case where the first quantifier was {ro} and so took in all the prenu. With other initial quantifiers, it works out that the retriction attached to the second use is that they all are among those selected by the first quantifier, i.e. roughly {su'o da poi prenu su'o de po'u da zo'u} (I'm not sure this will exactly work until I run the expansion, which I am too lazy to do just now). That is, once {da} is set up as a term, quantifiers work on it as they do on other terms {lo broda} for example. I am unsure what that would mean for the {goi} case; probably gobbledygook unless la alphas was the same entity as la betas. What does {ko'a goi la alfas ko'a goi la betas} mean: {da} should be the same. Yes {da'o} clears the xy assignment and the subsequent {da} is a new quantifier, not now restricted to xy. But without the {da'o} (or other devices for clearing assignments), even {ro da} would be restricted to xy. I think. This is expansion of Book 16:14 (pp 410-1) --part1_f2.d4fa426.2891c726_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/26/2001 12:22:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

><
> ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami su'o da
>
>Is that {ro da poi prenu zo'u da prami da}, or is it
>{ro da poi prenu ku'o ro de poi prenu zo'u da prami de}?>
>
>The latter

I'm relieved to hear that. The second quantifier then
_does_ bind a new variable, only one with the same
poi-restriction as the previous one.

Then {su'o da poi prenu zo'u da prami su'o da} means
{su'o da poi prenu ku'o su'o de poi prenu zo'u da prami de}
and therefore {su'o da goi la alfas su'o da goi la betas},
given that there are no poi-restrictions, does mean the same
as {su'o da goi la alfas su'o de goi la betas}.

Well, no. My answer was for the particular case where the first quantifier
was {ro} and so took in all the prenu. With other initial quantifiers, it
works out that the retriction attached to the second use is that they all are
among those selected by the first quantifier, i.e. roughly {su'o da poi
prenu su'o de po'u da zo'u} (I'm not sure this will exactly work until I run
the expansion, which I am too lazy to do just now). That is, once {da} is
set up as a term, quantifiers work on it as they do on other terms {lo broda}
for example.
I am unsure what that would mean for the {goi} case; probably gobbledygook
unless la alphas was the same entity as la betas. What does {ko'a goi la
alfas ko'a goi la betas} mean: {da} should be the same.

<On a related issue, what happens here: {su'o da goi xy ...
da'o ... xy}. Does da'o clear the xy assignment? Presumably
it does, as it clears all pro-sumti, doesn't it? But da'o
is not necessary to use da again, all that is necessary is
a new quantifier.>

Yes {da'o} clears the xy assignment and the subsequent {da} is a new
quantifier, not now restricted to xy. But without the {da'o} (or other
devices for clearing assignments), even {ro da} would be restricted to xy.

I think. This is expansion of Book 16:14 (pp 410-1) --part1_f2.d4fa426.2891c726_boundary--