Message-ID: <20041202175246.63851.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:52:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Where can I learn more about logic?
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <20041202173724.GK25791@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 777


--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> *Oh*.  Can't have a zo'u clause after at "i je", because the
> previous zo'u clause carries through and you'd essentially be
> over-riding it. 

You wouldn't be over-riding it. There is no logical impediment
to having a prenexed semtence within the scope of another 
prenex, and indeed that's what the logical notation has in
this case and also it is easy to replicate with forethought 
connectives. There is no compelling reason why we can't do it, 
that's why it is so easy to forget that rule.

> Easiest way to fix:

Even easier would be to teach the parser to accept it. :)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail