Date:  Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:56:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711140356.WAA02248@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      tu`a
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 910
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 13 22:56:44 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

John to me to Jorge:
> > > There's no problem either with:
> > >
> > >                             mi denpa tu'a lo plejykarce
> > >                             "I'm waiting for something about a taxi."
> > >
> > > because the quantification is within the abstraction:
> >
> > Was that actually established? I don't remember that.
>
> There is no doubt that (absent a prenex) quantification is local
> to the nearest enclosing bridi.

Agreed.

> Presumably a "tu'a", which implies
> an internal bridi (tu'a zo'e = tu'a le su'u co'e) has the same
> rule.

But in {broda tu`a da}, what is the nearest enclosing bridi for
da? Does it mean

  da zo`u broda le su`u da co`e

or

  broda le su`u da zo`u da co`e

? Jorge clearly thinks the latter, but if anything it's the
less straightforward option (since it goes against the syntax),
and I certainly don't remember an official pronouncement in its
favour.

--And