RE: [lojban] ma'a as possessive: mass or individual?

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> eh? I thought that at least you and me had agreed that {ro prenu cu
> prami ri} = {ro prenu cu prami ro prenu}, and that the way to avoid
> repeating the quantifier was to remove it from the antecedent sumti
> by putting it in a prenex.

What I thought I remembered was that {ro prenu cu prami ro ri}
was that, but without the second quantifier it behaves like a
bound variable.

> IOW, the basic rule is that anaphors
> repeat the full antecedent sumti. The rationale was that this rule
> makes it easier to do versions with and without repetition of
> quantifier, whereas if the default was that the anaphor repeated
> only the bound variable then it would be very difficult to do
> the version where the quantification is repeated.

That rationale works better for the way I remembered it. I don't
need a prenex for either version.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp