Re: ci cribe

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

And:
> > To get the second meaning, I would say:
> >         le ci cribe cu batci rori
>
> This doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to me to mean
> "Each of the three bears bit each of itself" - daft.

Well, I tried to give it some meaning.  I don't know what is the meaning
of quantifying a variable that is already quantified.

What do these mean:

        ro da voi cribe zo'u da batci ro da

        ro da voi cribe zo'u da batci su'o da

        ro da voi cribe zo'u da batci re da

They are either meaningless, or they have to be interpreted as if the
second quantification is a subselection from the first, where the new
{da} is properly a new variable.

I would say they mean, respectively:

        Each bear bit each bear.

        Each bear bit at least one of the bears.

        Each bear bit two of the bears.


> > In this case, the prenex form would be:
> >         ro da voi cribe ku'o ro de voi cribe zo'u: da batci de
> >         For each x of what I'm calling bears, for each y of what
> >         I'm calling bears: x bites y.
>
> Right. And it would be nice to have a logically coherent and
> not too cumbersome way to say it.

Why is my proposed solution not logically coherent?  It seems to be the
most reasonable interpretation of a re-quantification of an already
bound variable.

> > A more common way of speaking would probably be:
> >         lei ci cribe cu batci ri
> >         The three bears bite themselves.
>
> "bear bit itself", "a bear threesome bit itself".
> It's not really a satisfactory way of saying "each of the bears
> bit each of the bears".

No, of course not.  I just meant that it's a much more likely thing to
say.  If you are walking by and see three bears biting themselves, and
want to point it out to someone, you will say {lei ci cribe cu batci
ri}.  It is very unlikely that they will be so organized that each one
bites each one.  You are more likely to describe a single event, not
nine events, with one sentence.

Jorge