[lojban] 'LAhe-da' (was RE: Tidying notes on {goi}

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>]

Jorge:
> The way I propose is very transparent: The second quantifier
> introduces a new variable just as if you had used a different da
> (say daxize) with the convenience that it remains restricted
> to the same set as the one you had been using so far, so you are
> spared from repeating the poi clause. No special new scope rule
> is required.

This has to be set against the inconvenience of the shortage of
da-series KOhA, which makes it desirable to be able to recycle
them as much as possible.

This of course was how the original thread began -- by me 
proposing [-- I'm reformulating here --] something in LAhE that
takes a cmene and yields a quantifiable variable, and assigns
the value of the variable to the cmene. You replied that {su'o 
da goi la ab" would do the job, but it won't under your proposal, 
and your proposal would make my 'LAhE-da' even more necessary, 
since you'd have to be resorting to {da xi pa} that much more 
often.

--And.