Re: paroi ro mentu

["jjllambias2000" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la djorden cusku di'e

> ko'a .e ko'e may sometimes (or even most of the time) mean the same
> thing as ro le re co'e, but since it is not a specified part of the
> language it has no relevance to a discussion about how quantified 
terms
> and tags containing quantifiers work in the language.

For me it is extremely relevant.

> So I agree this is probably a pointless argument, as I am apparently
> discussing lojban, whereas you are discussing lojban + local hacks.

You're picking up pc's bad habits... :)

I don't really mind how you label it, I think I'm discussing Lojban.

> > {pa le prenu cu klama la paris e la romas}? 
> > 
> > (1) pa le prenu cu klama la paris ije pa le prenu cu klama la 
romas
> >
> > (2) ko'a goi pa le prenu zo'u ko'a klama la paris ije ko'a klama 
la romas
> 
> I agree in that it has the meaning of number 2.  I don't agree that
> it has the side effect of defining ko'a.  A better way of putting it
> is that it first expands to
>   pa le prenu cu klama la paris gi'e klama la romas

Then the {paroiku} case first expands to:

   paroiku mi klama la paris gi'e klama la romas

{paroiku} should behave just like {pa prenu}.

> I'm still not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

It shows that quantifiers of other terms can have scope over {e}, 
in exactly the same way that they can have scope over {ro}.

mu'omi'e xorxes