Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::233;
Message-ID: <54C64969.3010704@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:04:25 +0100
From: Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical scope of LAhE
References: <54C6332A.6010907@gmail.com> <54C63614.3060308@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <54C63614.3060308@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: 0.8
X-Spam_score_int: 8
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 
 Content preview:  je'e ki'e spuda .i mi tugni gi'e zanru la selpa'i di'e cusku
    > la .ilmen. cu cusku di'e >> coi ro do >> >> I have a question. >> Let's
    consider the sentence {mi djica tu'a da}. Does {da} have >> scope/priority
    over {tu'a}, or vice versa? >> Which of the below expansions is correct?
   >> >> 1) {mi djica lo du'u su'o da zo'u da co'e} -- {tu'a} expands first,
   it >> has priority over {da}. >> 2) {su'o da zo'u mi djica lo du'u da co'e}
    -- {da} expands first, it has >> priority over {tu'a}. >> 3) Ambiguous scope.
    > > Number 1) is correct - {tu'a} is opaque. (The rest of LAhE should be
   > as well, though Martin seemed to be hesitant about that; see the > recent-ish
    tersmu thread) > >> The Lojban interpreter Tersmus opines that {da} has priority
    over >> {tu'a}. However, this behavior doesn't parallel the way LE is handled:
    >> >> {mi djica lo co'e be da} is interpreted as {mi djica lo poi'i su'o
   da >> zo'u ke'a da co'e}, and not as {su'o da zo'u mi djica lo poi'i ke'a
   da >> co'e}, so {lo} has scope/priority over {da}. > > Yes, or you could say
    that it's the {be} that's opaque, since {broda > be su'o da} is itself a
   selbri. The same happens with tenses inside > {be}-clauses. Of course when
    the {da} is quantified inside a > sub-bridi, then its scope won't come out
    either, which is what happens > with {poi'i}, or {noi} in {zo'e noi}. > >
    mi'e la selpa'i mu'o > [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.8 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: googlegroups.com]
  2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
                             [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN]
                             [A]
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3      RBL: Good reputation (+3)
                             [209.85.215.57 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
  0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail
                             domains are different
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (ilmen.pokebip[at]gmail.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                             [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and
                             EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL      Mailspike good senders

je'e ki'e spuda .i mi tugni gi'e zanru

la selpa'i di'e cusku
> la .ilmen. cu cusku di'e
>> coi ro do
>>
>> I have a question.
>> Let's consider the sentence {mi djica tu'a da}. Does {da} have
>> scope/priority over {tu'a}, or vice versa?
>> Which of the below expansions is correct?
>>
>> 1) {mi djica lo du'u su'o da zo'u da co'e} -- {tu'a} expands first, it
>> has priority over {da}.
>> 2) {su'o da zo'u mi djica lo du'u da co'e} -- {da} expands first, it has
>> priority over {tu'a}.
>> 3) Ambiguous scope.
>
> Number 1) is correct - {tu'a} is opaque. (The rest of LAhE should be 
> as well, though Martin seemed to be hesitant about that; see the 
> recent-ish tersmu thread)
>
>> The Lojban interpreter Tersmus opines that {da} has priority over
>> {tu'a}. However, this behavior doesn't parallel the way LE is handled:
>>
>> {mi djica lo co'e be da} is interpreted as {mi djica lo poi'i su'o da
>> zo'u ke'a da co'e}, and not as {su'o da zo'u mi djica lo poi'i ke'a da
>> co'e}, so {lo} has scope/priority over {da}.
>
> Yes, or you could say that it's the {be} that's opaque, since {broda 
> be su'o da} is itself a selbri. The same happens with tenses inside 
> {be}-clauses. Of course when the {da} is quantified inside a 
> sub-bridi, then its scope won't come out either, which is what happens 
> with {poi'i}, or {noi} in {zo'e noi}.
>
> mi'e la selpa'i mu'o
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.