X-Digest-Num: 272
Message-ID: <44114.272.1514.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:06:00 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 3 dogs, 2 men, many arguments
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1514
Content-Length: 778
Lines: 33


la xarmuj cusku di'e

>I should let xod speak for hirself, but I had gathered that actually what 
>was intended was that they both should mean "de ro da zo'u da broda de .ije 
>ro da de zo'u da broda de",

The first one entails the second, so the second doesn't
add anything.

>and that both of *those* bridi mean the
>same thing as well.

I thought he admitted differences of scope by order
of appearance as long as they were explicited in
the prenex.

>The current meaning of "de ro da zo'u da broda de"
>would be expressed using a mapping cmavo between de and ro da.

The current meaning of "de ro da zo'u" is the one
he wants to keep. The one he argues with is
"ro da de zo'u".

>Or maybe I misunderstood completely :).

Or maybe I did. :)

co'o mi'e xorxes