Re: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope?

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/2/2001 2:59:29 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com writes:

According to recent discussion (and this dismays me greatly) {da} loses
its binding at the next bare {.i}!

I certainly don't remember that from the book - in fact, I seem to
remember a special rule that {da}-variables are cleared at {ni'o}.

Although Refgram 7.13 (162) says that a bound variable is stable until rebound, the details in 16.14 (410) say 1) that requantified variables refer so subparts of the referent of the original -- but for one occurrence only then return to the full previous reference and 2) that they are stable through sentences joined by ijeks, "theoretically a bare ".i" terminates the scope"  with some further rules about shorter scopes and conventions about informally and formally lengthening the scope.

Y'all should pay attention -- especially if And and pc (and throw in xorxes) agree about ANYTHING.
As for {da'o} it is more for dereferencing things assigned by {goi} and the like, it just happens to take out {da} too.
As for the fuss about "I've always done it tother way," go ahead, it's approived by informla (though official) cnvention.  Just don't get too much of a gap between occurrences so that we forget the connection.  {da} will then pretty much automatically dereference.
We over here in TRUTH resent the "non-user" crack and laugh at the absurdity of us as a cabal.

{gumri} is an ancient word for "mushroom, fungus" not in the current list but attracting some fondness.