Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r7b7s-00006eC; Wed, 16 Nov 94 05:33 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0752; Wed, 16 Nov 94 05:33:52 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0749; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 05:33:50 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8662; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 04:30:34 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:39:04 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: wff, lo broda...le broda X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 768 Lines: 32 > > Is there any rule for how long the binding lasts, or is it left to context? > > The rule is that bindings last through all logically connected bridi. > By extension, an isolated da-series after the next bare ".i" (or "ni'o") > can be assumed bound. To override this assumption, use "da'o" to clear > pro-sumti/pro-bridi assignments. Another related thing: mi e do prami da expands to: mi prami da ije do prami de Is that right? This is assuming that {e} distributes like {ro}, as seems we concluded from the discussion with Randall Holmes. This makes sense, because mi e do prami lo prenu should mean mi prami lo prenu ije do prami lo prenu and there is no reason to suppose it is the same prenu. Is that right? Jorge