Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 10:17:48 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {da poi} (was: Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141004141748.GH32481@gonzales>
References: <CACf3dPniWPENbiHT=EsTHGTApOOx5duQgo5SxZevF=FM7jUnqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACf3dPnptiNra7pU3dyuC7-Mhm-T6_mpyP92SNs1GXy+Roo+dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140928160229.GD28734@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2fNkoiVA-7ZVc9LWTcBo5AaoexS2bua1cj48=DsOYo+CQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vKFfOv5t3oGVpiF+"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2fNkoiVA-7ZVc9LWTcBo5AaoexS2bua1cj48=DsOYo+CQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: gunka
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=neutral
 (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--vKFfOv5t3oGVpiF+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 21:17 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.co=
m>:

> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> > So a {noi} on a variable yields a side claim entirely
> > outside the scope of the corresponding quantifier, so involving an
> > unbound variable, which I'm currently (fairly arbitrarily) handling by
> > universally quantifying it out over whatever domain it was originally
> > quantified over, so e.g. {du su'o da poi broda zi'e noi brode} -> {ro da
> > poi broda zo'u da brode .i su'o da poi broda zo'u du da}.
>=20
> Should we allow for the possibility that "brode" is not distributive over
> the brodas?
> Something like:
>=20
>    su'o da poi plini zi'e noi so'i so'i mei cu terdi

I think it's a reasonable rule that since {su'o} is a singular
quantifier, the implicit relative variable in the noi clause refers
to a singular variable. That would rule out this kind of thing.

Martin

--vKFfOv5t3oGVpiF+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlQwAYwACgkQULC7OLX7LNa+SgCfWhixxmtXVs+tpg0A2zw4qRex
yTkAoK3hGTfbq5oX/hRyZocOTKARWXAK
=0V05
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--vKFfOv5t3oGVpiF+--