From pycyn@aol.com Sun Sep 23 07:33:18 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 23 Sep 2001 14:32:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 76931 invoked from network); 23 Sep 2001 14:32:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 23 Sep 2001 14:32:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Sep 2001 14:33:17 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.110.5c728bc (3869) for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2001 10:33:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <110.5c728bc.28df4caa@aol.com> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 10:33:14 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_110.5c728bc.28df4caa_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_110.5c728bc.28df4caa_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/23/2001 9:12:09 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > I haven't really been keeping up with this thread, partly because > I'm short of time and partly because on skimming it Jorge seems > to be saying everything I would wish said (so consider my voice > to be being implicitly added as an echo of Jorge's). But I just > want to chime in here to point out that I said that ce'u belongs to > the localmost bridi, and since {le mamta be ce'u} is not a bridi, > the ce'u is not 'confined' to that phrase; the ce'u belongs to the > bridi in which {le mamta be ce'u} is a sumti. > Sorry to have misrepresented you. But unfortunately, {ce'u} as a lambda variable is confinded to the limits of bridi fragment in this case: ^xg(x) is well-formed and takes precedence over ^xFg(x). which requires a separate form (put another way, the bridi fragment is a bridi, though not asserted -- but then none of the ones containing ce'u are asserted). --part1_110.5c728bc.28df4caa_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/23/2001 9:12:09 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


I haven't really been keeping up with this thread, partly because
I'm short of time and partly because on skimming it Jorge seems
to be saying everything I would wish said (so consider my voice
to be being implicitly added as an echo of Jorge's). But I just
want to chime in here to point out that I said that ce'u belongs to
the localmost bridi, and since {le mamta be ce'u} is not a bridi,
the ce'u is not 'confined' to that phrase; the ce'u belongs to the
bridi in which {le mamta be ce'u} is a sumti.


Sorry to have misrepresented you.  But  unfortunately, {ce'u} as a lambda variable is confinded to the limits of bridi fragment in this case: ^xg(x) is well-formed and takes precedence over ^xFg(x). which requires a separate form (put another way, the bridi fragment is a bridi, though not asserted -- but then none of the ones containing ce'u are asserted).
--part1_110.5c728bc.28df4caa_boundary--