Re: [lojban] goi

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Jorge Llambias scripsit:

> No, that's not what I used. It has to be {su'o da goi la ab
> su'o da goi la ac}. A bare da won't do it the second time,
> because it is already bound by the first quantifier, so in
> your example {la ab} and {la ac} refer to the same thing.
> But a second {su'o da} introduces a new variable, because
> you can't quantify a variable that has already been bound.

IIRC when you quantify a variable that has already been bound,
it is just a normal quantifier, so the second "su'o da" means
"one or more of (the existing) da", not very useful.
But ro da poi .... re da would mean "two of those which etc."

The only way to force the effect you want is to use de
or to use the cmavo, whatever it is, that clears all
anaphora.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter