From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Sep 06 19:25:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 02:25:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 81546 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 02:24:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 02:24:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.59) by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 02:24:24 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 19:24:21 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.59 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 Sep 2001 02:24:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.59] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: [lojban] ma'a as possessive: mass or individual? Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 02:24:20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Sep 2001 02:24:21.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[33DD75E0:01C13744] From: "Jorge Llambias" 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