Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 15:42:44 -0500 (EST)
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject: Re: Q-kau
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Message-id: <01HKRHMP5LHE000HW5@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1086
Lines: 30

la lojbab cusku di'e

> Using the prenex with "lo" kinda violates the purpose of "lo" which was to
> shorten things and eliminate the need to deal with bound variables.

I don't recommend doing it unless it is for some special effect. It was
just a suggestion for how you could avoid changing the meaning of the
sentence with SE conversion.

> If it
> does not shorten things, I simply use your oft-repeated syllable argument
> against you: "da poi" takes only one more syllable and is much clearer.

Yes, but you can't use "dapoi" every time you want a nonspecific reference,
it would either be confusing (only three variables) or cumbersome (use of
subscripts).

I'm not sure what are we arguing, though.

I agree that SE conversion doesn't change the meaning of the _selbri_.

However, the order of the sumti does change the meaning of the _bridi_.

If this is not true, then give the correct rule. All you've said is
that {ro prenu cu prami su'o prenu} should mean the same as {su'o prenu
cu se prami ro prenu}, but you haven't given the rule to interpret
scopes in general.

Jorge