From phma@webjockey.net Thu Mar 25 09:19:05 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 40847 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 17:19:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2004 17:19:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO blackcat.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 17:19:04 -0000 Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 48FB92CD; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:19:01 +0000 (UTC) Organization: dis To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:19:00 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: <200403250931.i2P9VLb16669@xahlee.org> <200403250937.05063.phma@webjockey.net> <20040325163110.GC25199@skunk.reutershealth.com> In-Reply-To: <20040325163110.GC25199@skunk.reutershealth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200403251219.00947.phma@webjockey.net> X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 208.150.110.21 From: Pierre Abbat Subject: Re: [lojban] fi'u was Re:lanzu usage X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21801 On Thursday 25 March 2004 11:31, jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote: > .i roxy. ro.y.bu rozy. nony. zo'u > li xy. te'a ny. su'i .y.bu te'a ny. du li zy. te'a ny. > .ije li ny. zmadu li re > > This last raises the question of whether it's legitimate to use lerfu in > prenexes to represent bound variables. Currently, the only bound variables > are da, de, di and variants thereof, but this really isn't enough for > stating proofs, and it's too remote from mathematical convention. Do we > get into trouble if we allow uses like the above, rather than the > straight interpretation "For all of the in-mind-things-beginning-with-X"? The prenex needs to be refermatted. It looks like one long number-letter string, and without a member of KOhA it's ungrammatical, at least according to jbofi'e. phma -- li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa