Re: TECH: Quantifiers; Confusing prenexes

[i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

la lojbab. cusku di'e
> Does this help???

Yes, it does - to clarify the issues if nothing else.

> (1b) {de zo'u [ro da poi (da) broda de vau] [ro de poi brode da]} zo'u ...

This highlights one of the problems I have.  I'm used to logical systems
where the second quantification of {de}, the {ro de li'o}, introduces
a new {de} with a nested (or at least different) scope.  We even have
a rule somewhere that says that a new quantification of a previously-
used variable name introduces a new variable with its own scope.
(Let's call this rule R.)
Is this what's going on here?

If not, it is somehow the same {de} as before, but we are subselecting
only those such that {de brode da}.  This looks to me like it is an
abbreviation for an expression introducing a new variable (name) {di},
something like

        ro di po'u de zi'e poi brode da

or, perhaps even clearer, a preliminary clause in the body of the jufra,
such as

        li'o zo'u de brode da .inaja li'o

This is the case which has been causing problems in interpretation.


If zu'unai the new quantification introduces a completely new variable,
then everything's much simpler.  But I don't see what makes this any
better-formed than (1a):

> (1a) [ro da poi {de zo'u (da) broda de vau}] [ro de poi brode da] zo'u ...

Both have a {de} in the {ro da li'o} section, and then a new {de}
introduced by the following quantification.  It would be clearer
with a new variable name {di}, but I don't see any fundamental
problem.   In fact, this would be the natural and default
interpretation of

(1) [ro da poi broda de vau] [ro de poi brode da] zo'u ...

ta'o
Is there any difference between {<term1> <term2> zo'u} and
{<term1> zo'u <term2> zo'u}?  There doesn't seem to be any
reason why there should be.
ta'onai

> Nora says that if you want in any way to have the variable subordinate
> to "de" to be quantified any OTHER way than under the "roda" scope
> previously expressed, it also must be expressed as a separate variable,
> newly quantified (presumably) within the subordinate clause prenex.

At first I couldn't make any sense of this at all.  Now I think you
must mean 'the variable subordinate to "de"' to mean the {da} in the
{[ro de poi brode da]} in (1a), in which case I understand.
But I'm not sure I agree.  If there were an explicit quantifier
(e.g. {su'o}), I don't see why rule (R) shouldn't apply to give
a new variable.  The first part of the prenex would become totally
redundant, since both its variable names have just become
redefined, but the end result is well-defined and meaningful.

mu'o mi'e .i,n.