Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20;
Message-ID: <54C65ABB.50105@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 16:18:19 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; 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> <CAN2DD_HKZysVodXU1Cr5mprTmnL0CscPtzCgpGKKkd7ATzrW6A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN2DD_HKZysVodXU1Cr5mprTmnL0CscPtzCgpGKKkd7ATzrW6A@mail.gmail.com>
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:  la .dan. cu cusku di'e > Thank you Ilmen for asking, and selpa'i
    for answering. > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:41 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de
    > <mailto:seladwa@gmx.de>> wrote: > > 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) > > > This surprised me a
    little, and I'm happy that there has been a > consensus. What about jai?
   > > Example: {da jai se djica mi} > > Which of the following does this mean:
    > 1) mi djica lo su'u da zo'u da co'e > 2) da zo'u mi djica lo su'u da co'e
    > > (I would expect 2.) [...] 
 
 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)
                             [74.125.82.185 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
                             (seladwa[at]gmx.de)
 -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

la .dan. cu cusku di'e
> Thank you Ilmen for asking, and selpa'i for answering.
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 1:41 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de
> <mailto:seladwa@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>     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)
>
>
> This surprised me a little, and I'm happy that there has been a
> consensus. What about jai?
>
> Example: {da jai se djica mi}
>
> Which of the following does this mean:
> 1) mi djica lo su'u da zo'u da co'e
> 2) da zo'u mi djica lo su'u da co'e
>
> (I would expect 2.)

Yes, number 2). {jai} creates a new selbri, and {jai}-places do not 
differ from any other places. Placing a bare {Q da} in any sumti place 
results in them being bound in the most immediate prenex.

>
>     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}.
>
>
> Good! What about the scope of pe?

{pe su'o da} being short for {poi su'o da zo'u ke'a co'e da}, we can see 
that the variable belongs (is bound) "inside" the {pe}.


Btw, I forgot to comment on option 3 from Ilmen's original post:
> 3) Ambiguous scope.

Ambiguous scope can never be allowed in Lojban. It is never an option, 
or it isn't Lojban.

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.