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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 02:24:20

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