Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:34:49 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: paroi ro mentu
Message-ID: <an1qa9+j883@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020927061015.GB24912@allusion.net>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: "jjllambias2000" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Content-Length: 956
Lines: 35


la djorden cusku di'e

> (particularly the
> subset for which the planet hasn't yet been engulfed in its sun's
> supernova or however else planets cease to be, and after which it
> has formed).  So I suggest {paroi le'e mentu}.  pe'ipei

Yes, I guess you're right. That would neatly solve the scope issue
too, though I'm becomeing more convinced that the sumti always must
have scope over the tag:

{ze'a ro mentu} can never be the same ze'a for each minute.
{rere'u ro djedi} can never be the same second time for every day.
{ciroi ro masti} can never be the same three times every month.

So, I would say that the tag always falls within the scope of the
sumti's quantifier. (Unless someone comes up with interesting
cases where the opposite interpretation makes sense.)

> (btw; on a tangent:  what the hell does x3 and x4 of plini mean?

lojbab knows!

> Has anyone ever used them in a sentence?)

Of course not! :)

mu'o mi'e xorxes