From sentto-44114-16143-1033150080-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Sep 27 11:14:02 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n36.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.104]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17uzcm-0003mG-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:14:00 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-16143-1033150080-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n36.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 18:08:00 -0000 X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 18:08:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 97953 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 18:07:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 18:07:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.84) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 18:07:59 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.174] by n28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 18:07:59 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20020927161742.GB28382@allusion.net> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000" X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:07:58 -0000 Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 1631 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list la djorden cusku di'e > Now that I think about it, I actually think the book's example goes > the other way. In > mi klama le zarci reroi le ca djedi > unfortunately we can assume there's only 1 ca djedi, and thus it > doesn't say definitively. So the book's example doesn't go either way. As usual, sumti with singular referents don't care about the scope of quantifiers. > But if we assume the general left to > right rule applies, and consider the same thing meaning "current > days" instead of the "current day", it doesn't make sense that the > re should change to re * number_of_days. On the contrary, I think "twice every day" for {reroi le so'i djedi} makes eminent sense. What you want to do is give it the sense of {reroi le djedi be li so'i}, twice in the many-days-period. But that's a different thing. {reroi} tells you the number of times in one given period, never the number of times in a number of periods taken together. So the quantification over periods must always have scope over the number of times in each period. mu'o mi'e xorxes ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/GSaulB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/