Re: change 46

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

pc
> And there would be a conflict if we wanted to use the q/q lo
> distinction as a general afterthought device, with "all," particularly.

Surely that would overload the distinction.

> So we do not seem to have a general afterthought brancher yet,
> even with John's new device.

I don't see why? Where does q/q lo fail to work?

> Or, of course, we can do without any short form for restricted
> quantification (or unrestricted, but I don't see that option getting
> very far) and use the q/q lo distinction just for the the branching
> problem.

That's what I'd favour.

> And now for the theoretical question: how do we deal with quantifiers
> that branch relative to some other but not to all? In prenex, John's
> device can handle these to just about any level of complexity that I
> have found, but none of the devices seems to work regularly with
> unclumped sumti in afterthought mode.  Nor would any of the leaper
> devices, come to that.

Afterthought is kind of like an added bonus. Lojban has no duty to
provide it, but where feasible it is provided as a favour to users.

To get decent general purpose afterthought methods for scope I guess
the design of Lojlan would have to have begun with scope structure
rather than predicate structure.
---
And