From reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Sun Oct 31 23:11:37 1999
X-Digest-Num: 272
Message-ID: <44114.272.1521.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 00:11:37 -0700 (MST)
From: reciproc@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Subject: Re: 3 dogs, 2 men, many arguments

la xorxes. pu ciska di'e

> la xarmuj cusku di'e
> 
> >I should let xod speak for hirself, but I had gathered that actually what 
> >was intended was that they both should mean "de ro da zo'u da broda de .ije 
> >ro da de zo'u da broda de",
> 
> The first one entails the second, so the second doesn't
> add anything.

.o'anai! I knew that!

> >and that both of *those* bridi mean the
> >same thing as well.
> 
> I thought he admitted differences of scope by order
> of appearance as long as they were explicited in
> the prenex.

This would be where we *actually* disagree. I'm sure xod can tell us which
is right :).

> >The current meaning of "de ro da zo'u da broda de"
> >would be expressed using a mapping cmavo between de and ro da.
> 
> The current meaning of "de ro da zo'u" is the one
> he wants to keep. The one he argues with is
> "ro da de zo'u".

.ie I think I got "de ro da" and "ro da de" mixed up for some reason... So
what I *meant* to say was that the current meaning of "ro da de zo'u"
would be expressed with a mapping. I think I'll shut up now :).


co'omi'e xarmuj.