From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Mon Aug 27 20:22:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 28 Aug 2001 03:22:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 44682 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2001 03:22:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Aug 2001 03:22:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta05-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.45) by mta3 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 03:22:16 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.122]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010828032214.USHG20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 04:22:14 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: zo'e interps (was RE: lo'e Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 04:20:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <00f801c12f5d$598a89c0$8ab5003e@oemcomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Adam: > la .and. cusku di'e > > > My own preferred but totally unofficial rule for zo'e > > is that it is a variable bound by an existential quantifier with > > maximally narrow scope, so zo'e are bound within the abstraction, > > and hence {ro ka broda cu pa mei}. > > Do you mean with maximally broad scope (i.e. the prenex of the main > bridi, unless I don't understand narrow vs. broad scope)? No -- maximally narrow, by which I mean: within the scope of all overt scope-sensitive items (quantifiers, abstractions, connectives, etc.). That way, I think, avoids nasty logical bugs and also avoids one saying something that actually/technically makes a stronger claim than one wished to. To take the particular example above, {ro ka gerku cu pa mei} = ro ka su'o da zo'u ce'u gerku da cu pa mei. By my convention, that is; not by any official convention. --And.