From lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhD4xJrzBBoE4-ITNQ@googlegroups.com Tue Sep 06 15:45:23 2011 Received: from mail-gx0-f184.google.com ([209.85.161.184]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1R14OO-0001vK-VM; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:45:23 -0700 Received: by gxk20 with SMTP id 20sf6436937gxk.1 for ; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:45:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key:x-pgp-keyid:user-agent :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding; bh=W9ugfu4pVFlTwyZKkMuoRMYjTuOJBsV5dUYEmsymGEs=; b=N9Zvs1A6Vll9VlBiP3otBOmFOWWvaK7ZZf565kOKAVFVTRwKUA6nzUmv7AA4/qSrmx ekjs5JsJ/fgCktErVD/6FRwb1hCYCxFm6zD69bDKVPbpJ8bnl/tM63Qcjwz0oTTUd+9+ 19oEwy0gbVOxoL87w8bbYDfrvbx6xtVTERXDg= Received: by 10.90.15.19 with SMTP id 19mr15427ago.12.1315349112809; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:45:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.65.148 with SMTP id j20ls438443ibi.6.gmail; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.44.102 with SMTP id d6mr4298378pbm.9.1315349111908; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.44.102 with SMTP id d6mr4298377pbm.9.1315349111896; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ll18si239903pbb.0.2011.09.06.15.45.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19; Received: from sdf.org (mbays@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p86MjB3Q007013 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:45:11 GMT Received: (from mbays@localhost) by sdf.org (8.14.4/8.12.8/Submit) id p86MjBA8003761 for lojban@googlegroups.com; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:45:11 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 22:45:11 +0000 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] gadri and scope Message-ID: <20110906224507.GD24775@SDF.ORG> References: <20110906102408.GA2615@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Tuesday, 2011-09-06 at 18:44 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > {ro da zo'u da brode lo broda be da bei de} > > > > should be equivalent (under xorlo) to one of > > > > (i) {ro da su'o de zo'u da brode zo'e noi broda da de} > > (ii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de zo'u broda da de} > > (iii) {ro da zo'u da brode zo'e noi su'o de su'o di broda de di}. > > > > Which? > > > > I think (ii) is the best choice, on the bases of naturality and > > usefulness. >=20 > I agree (but see comment below). >=20 > > (i) is what you'd get if you took exportation to the prenex as a golden > > rule, and (iii) is what you'd get if you considered it all-important > > that {lo} give a constant. >=20 > I'm probably the only one who talks about "lo" giving a constant, but > I never meant for that to contrast with functions. "lo" gives a > constant as opposed to a bindable variable (da poi ...). It would be > more correct to say it creates a function, albeit a constant function > in most cases. So I don't think you will have anyone arguing for > (iii). Excellent. Glad we agree. > > (ii) makes its own sense - it's what you get if you consider tanru > > units, linkargs included, to correspond directly to relative clauses. >=20 > The only issue with (ii) is that it gives the "unexpected" reading to > things like "lo mamta be ro da cu prami da". >=20 > We always have the option of using the explicit prenex forms when > there is a risk of confusion, and anyone who says "lo mamta be ro da > cu prami da" when they do mean "lo mamta be ro da cu prami su'o de" is > obviously just looking for trouble. I think people will be quite capable of internalising the rule which gives the "unexpected" meaning. But yes, avoiding variable reuse will always be a friendly thing to do. Martin --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.