Re: [lojban] fi'u was Re:lanzu usage

[Pierre Abbat <phma@webjockey.net>]

On Thursday 25 March 2004 11:31, jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:
> .i roxy. ro.y.bu rozy. nony. zo'u
> 	li xy. te'a ny. su'i .y.bu te'a ny. du li zy. te'a ny.
> 	.ije li ny. zmadu li re
>
> This last raises the question of whether it's legitimate to use lerfu in
> prenexes to represent bound variables.  Currently, the only bound variables
> are da, de, di and variants thereof, but this really isn't enough for
> stating proofs, and it's too remote from mathematical convention.  Do we
> get into trouble if we allow uses like the above, rather than the
> straight interpretation "For all of the in-mind-things-beginning-with-X"?

The prenex needs to be refermatted. It looks like one long number-letter 
string, and without a member of KOhA it's ungrammatical, at least according 
to jbofi'e.

phma
-- 
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa