From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Nov 03 17:56:48 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 4 Nov 2001 01:56:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 3836 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2001 01:56:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167)
  by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Nov 2001 01:56:48 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46)
  by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2001 01:56:48 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.43.228]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
          id <20011104015646.UKZS21455.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 01:56:46 +0000
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: "Lojban@Yahoogroups. Com" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope?
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 01:56:03 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMIEOPEOAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20011102092608.K8020@digitalkingdom.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11914

Robin:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 04:25:36AM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > "An/This Englishman walks into an Irish pub. He goes up to the bar and..."
> > 
> > Which Englishman?
> > It doesn't matter -- any old Englishman.
> > So not {le glico} then?
> > No.
> > So {lo glico}?
> > Well, no, because its quantifier should bind only what is within its scope,
> > yet throughout the rest of the joke, "he" and "le glico" refer back to the
> > Englishman.
> > So what we need is a way to indicate an existential quantifier that 
> has scope
> > over an entire text?
> > Yes.
> > And how do we do that?
> > I've no idea. I'll ask The List.
> 
> Uhhh, doesn't da keep its binding until changed?
> 
> That's certainly how I use it.

It certainly keeps its binding (until unbound by da'o) while it remains
within the scope of the quantifier that binds it. Outside the scope of
a prior quantifier I would treat da as newly bound.

--And.