From mbays@sdf.lonestar.org Thu Jan 30 05:49:32 2003
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:49:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vinland.freeshell.org
	([207.202.214.139] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root)
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18eF4J-0000rc-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 05:49:27 -0800
Received: (from mbays@localhost)
	by sdf.lonestar.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) id h0UDnPh05480;
	Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:49:25 GMT
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:49:25 +0000 (UTC)
From: Martin Bays <mbays@freeshell.org>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030129215340.034cf800@pop.east.cox.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0301301340570.29154-100000@vinland.freeshell.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-archive-position: 3957
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: mbays@freeshell.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


Thank you muchly for this! You've cleared up a lot of fuzziness in my
understanding. Do you mind if I just ask you to check my understanding of
one passage, though? -

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> At 02:00 AM 1/30/03 +0000, Martin Bays wrote:
[...]
> >And also - I'm assuming that plain [sumbasti] is equivalent to su'o pa
> >[sumbasti]. If not, what difference does putting a quantifier before the
> >[sumbasti] make?
>
> For DA that is correct.  Since lerfu/KOhA are unbound, and presumed
> already-defined, I think they have implicit quantifier "ro"  I guess that
> you COULD use a lerfu as a bound variable by *explicitly* quantifying it in
> a prenex.
>

So are you saying that {.ibu poi broda zo'u} parallels {ro da poi broda
zo'u}, and {su'o .ibu poi broda zo'u} parallels {da poi broda zo'u}, and
that in both cases previous assignment of .ibu is overridden, at least for
the scope of the prenex (following the usual DA rules)? And just for
completeness - does it then, after the scope of the prenex has finished,
revert back to its pre-prenex assignment, or become unset?

If I *have* understood you right here, firstly - good, that makes sense
and should be usable, and secondly - any objections if I start a Wiki page
on all this? I feel it's the kind of thing which should be explicitly
documented somewhere.

Thank you!

---
#^t'm::>#shs>:#,_$1+9j9"^>h>" < v
:>8*0\j" o'u" v" e'i" v".neta"^q>
       ;z,[;  >       >       ^