From phma@webjockey.net Tue Jan 28 18:20:53 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 29 Jan 2003 02:20:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 60453 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2003 02:20:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2003 02:20:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2003 02:20:53 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18dhqO-0002B6-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:20:52 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dhqH-0002Am-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:20:45 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:20:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dhqB-0002Ac-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:20:40 -0800 Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 172D0A998; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Organization: dis To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:20:09 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200301282120.09695.phma@webjockey.net> X-archive-position: 3939 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Tuesday 28 January 2003 11:48, Martin Bays wrote: > No, that's not what I meant. I get all that stuff. Sorry, I was far from > clear (damned rarbau thinking). What I meant was that in {lu'i .abu boi xi > .ibu poi .ibu cmima tau .ibu}, the poi phrase isn't (I think) binding to > the .ibu, which is just a lerfu string as part of the subscript, and if I > understand my EBNF right NOI can only bind to a sumti. The entire {.abu > boi xi .ibu} is acting as a sumti here, so the poi relates to that. And > the poi phrase gives a condition on .ibu, and hence on a *part of the > description* of ke'a, rather than ke'a itself. > > So what I'm asking is - is this valid? Does it have the obvious meaning? > Similarly, is {lo broda be da ku poi da brode} legit? Would anything > change if ko'a or .ibu replaced da? How about if ko'a had been used > before, and still had scope, or if a recent sumti had a description > beginning with an .ibu? It is valid, and does mean what you mean it to mean. There's nothing wrong with rarbau thinking if you think in the right rarbau - in this case, lo cabna xelso .e lo xebro. Both have a word ("pou" fa'u "asher") which corresponds to {poi} or {noi}, a relative conjunction, and both these words originally meant "where". > Also, and relatedly, is {ro boi .ibu poi kacna'u zo'u .ibu broda} > quantifying over .ibu, or is the prenex just giving a subject restricting > whatever .ibu already refers to to natural numbers? It is quantifying over .ibu. See chapter 16, verse 4. phma