From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Sun Sep 29 10:10:15 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17vha9-0004Uw-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:10:13 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8THEMGZ052481 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:14:22 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8THEMrj052480 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:14:22 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 12:14:22 -0500 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: <20020929171422.GB52418@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8GpibOaaTibBMecb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1724 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --8GpibOaaTibBMecb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 04:37:50PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la djorden cusku di'e [...] > > > The rule I think is the Right Thing is that {e}/{ro} have > > > scope over {pa} in that example. > > > >That is of course the whole discussion. My viewpoint is that the > >paroi scopes over the pavdei, which scopes over the reldei, etc. >=20 > You say of course, but you don't apply it. You are not taking > into account that {e} has a scope of its own as well. When you > split {paroi ko'a e ko'e} into {paroi ko'a ije paroi ko'e}, you're > saying that {e} has scope over {paroi}. If {paroi} had scope over > {e} you could not make the expansion. Expanding {e} is equivalent > to exporting {ro} to the prenex. Where's the book say that? And strictly speaking btw, since the claims of pavdei and reldei aren't related (e instead of jo'u) the scoping of quantifiers from the first one won't change the meaning. I don't think it makes sense to talk about quantifier scope for {e}, which has no quantifiers. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --8GpibOaaTibBMecb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9lzTuDrrilS51AZ8RAh+nAKDMrtsgS/eikqoqAJv1DASn5PZEqQCgsvAv sxFY8e0ja8POvMs1XlP0Z7M= =0tFe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8GpibOaaTibBMecb--