From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Oct 30 06:58:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 14:58:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 34356 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 14:58:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 14:58:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 14:58:04 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:34:32 +0000 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:09:01 +0000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:08:31 +0000 To: rob , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin >>> Rob Speer 10/29/01 09:54pm >>> #On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 04:32:25AM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote: #> To be safe, say {ije} instead of=20 #> {i} the second time (why the first, by the way?).=20 # #In writing multiple sentences, I am in the habit of using some separator #to begin the first sentence. The reason is that otherwise the first word #would be at the "start of text" which does weird things to the scope of #attitudinals. (People didn't believe me the first time I mentioned this #- it was in the heat of the attitudinal debate and they thought it was #my own proposal - but the Book says that an attitudinal at the start #of text applies to the entire text, so if you want it to be an #ordinary attitudinal which applies to the sentence, you have to put .i #before it.) # #Even though there was no attitudinal in this case, I find it useful to #simply be in the habit of beginning the text with some sort of #separator. Interesting. I had tended to think of .i more as an end-of-sentence marker like a full stop (e.g. does it go before or after a paragraph bounda= ry),=20 precisely because it's not required at the start of the first sentence. But your remarks show me to be mistaken. #Anyway, I'm a bit unclear on why .ije would make a difference. Does {.i} #remove the assignments of {da}-cmavo? If so, why do people think {da'o} #needs to be improved? Because the first {da} =3D {su'o da}, and (pace pc) the quantifier goes to= =20 the prenex of the bridi it occurs in . The su'o can only bind variables wit= hin its scope (=3D elements following it in the bridi it occurs in), so it cann= ot=20 bind variables in following sentences. If {ije} does indeed allow binding to cross sentence boundaries, then this would require some special rule to get the su'o to have scope over the je. On reflection, I think the default position is that absent any such spe= cial rules, variable binding can never cross sentence boundaries. --And.