From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 28 17:02:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 29 Sep 2002 00:02:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 20658 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 00:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Sep 2002 00:02:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.155) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 00:02:03 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 17:02:03 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.55 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:02:03 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:02:03 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Sep 2002 00:02:03.0622 (UTC) FILETIME=[7105F860:01C2674B] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.55] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la and cusku di'e >1. The general rule doesn't apply when, say, {e} is within the >scope of {na}. So it can't be taken for granted that it applies >to the present instance. I used the case of {e} because it seemed to me to be more intuitive than {ro}. Of course {e} and {ro} are equally affected by things with scope. I believe {broda ko'a e ko'e} should always expand as {broda ko'a ije broda ko'e}, and if that holds, then {paroi ro mentu} has to mean "once per minute". >2. For {ci roi le pavdei ku joi le reldei} and {ci roi lei re djedi}, >I would like to be sure that there is some way to say that the >three occasions are distributed throughout the two days, such >that {ci roi le pavdei} and {ci roi lei pa djedi} would be false. >If that is doable, then my reservations would be assuaged. I don't understand why you want that. If {ciroi le jeftu} is true, it can also be true that {ciroi le pavdei}. Similarly for {ciroi lei ze djedi}, and {ciroi lei re djedi}. >So what do these mean? > >ci roi ku ca re djedi > -- three occasions, each occurring over two days >ca re djedi ku ci roi > -- occurring on two days, thrice on each day > >Is that right? That's what I would like, yes. The other possibility is that they both mean the second, if tags never have scope over following terms, but I don't see the advantage of that. >Remind me what is to be gained by using roi + sumti rather >than roi + ku? That the sumti gives the exact interval in which the repetitions occur, {ca} just gives an event with some overlap. I suppose {ze'a ro mentu paroi} would work just as well as {paroi ro mentu}. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com