From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 28 13:22:06 2002
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 20:22:05 -0000
Received: (qmail 61808 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 20:22:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 20:22:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n5.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.89)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 20:22:06 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.145] by n5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 28 Sep 2002 20:22:05 -0000
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 20:22:03 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: paroi ro mentu
Message-ID: <an531b+29q6@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020928192543.GA43408@allusion.net>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 1386
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "jjllambias2000" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: 200.69.6.60
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566
X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16167


la djorden cusku di'e

> ko'a .e ko'e may sometimes (or even most of the time) mean the same
> thing as ro le re co'e, but since it is not a specified part of the
> language it has no relevance to a discussion about how quantified 
terms
> and tags containing quantifiers work in the language.

For me it is extremely relevant.

> So I agree this is probably a pointless argument, as I am apparently
> discussing lojban, whereas you are discussing lojban + local hacks.

You're picking up pc's bad habits... :)

I don't really mind how you label it, I think I'm discussing Lojban.

> > {pa le prenu cu klama la paris e la romas}? 
> > 
> > (1) pa le prenu cu klama la paris ije pa le prenu cu klama la 
romas
> >
> > (2) ko'a goi pa le prenu zo'u ko'a klama la paris ije ko'a klama 
la romas
> 
> I agree in that it has the meaning of number 2.  I don't agree that
> it has the side effect of defining ko'a.  A better way of putting it
> is that it first expands to
>   pa le prenu cu klama la paris gi'e klama la romas

Then the {paroiku} case first expands to:

   paroiku mi klama la paris gi'e klama la romas

{paroiku} should behave just like {pa prenu}.

> I'm still not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

It shows that quantifiers of other terms can have scope over {e}, 
in exactly the same way that they can have scope over {ro}.

mu'omi'e xorxes