From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Fri Sep 07 05:47:30 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 12:47:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 43886 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 12:47:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 12:47:20 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 12:47:20 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.173]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20010907124717.NNNQ15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:47:17 +0100
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] ma'a as possessive: mass or individual?
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:46:33 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKELDEKAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
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: <F596yAPmgaVo3rkRZFG0000a67e@hotmail.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>

Jorge:
> 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.

That rings a bell too. Certainly that's how {da} works, especially if
restrictions persevere onto requantifications.

> >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.

Does the same go for vo'a and lo/le/tu'o no'a?

Hopefully once the Elephant is up and running we'll no longer have to
have an exchange like this one.

--And.