RE: [lojban] goi

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

Jorge:
> la and cusku di'e
> 
> >2. Jorge tells me that (or so I understood), {da goi la ab
> >da goi la ac} is equivalent to {da xi pa goi la ab da xi
> >re goi la ac}, i.e. because it assigns its value to the
> >goi sumti, it is bound by a different quantifier (that is,
> >it is a different variable).
> 
> 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.

Ah: sorry. Yes of course. That was thick of me. 

--And.