From pycyn@aol.com Tue Oct 30 11:07:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 19:07:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 62041 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 19:07:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 19:07:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta2 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 19:07:10 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.149.3c897e3 (4539) for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:06:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <149.3c897e3.29105452@aol.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 14:06:58 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] a construal of lo'e & le'e To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_149.3c897e3.29105452_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_149.3c897e3.29105452_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/30/2001 9:03:46 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > Because the first {da} = {su'o da}, and (pace pc) the quantifier goes to > the prenex of the bridi it occurs in . The su'o can only bind variables > within > its scope (= elements following it in the bridi it occurs in), so it cannot > 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 > special > As I have noted before, there is an ambiguity is "sentence" as applied to Lojban and And is here taking one very narrow -- and generally disastrous -- version (it makes it ahrd to make generalizations for example). And also complicates this by a peculiar rule (which he says everyone uses though everyone else seems to violate it regulalry) about where quantifiers really go. Ignore him or become unable to say very much in normal Lojban. --part1_149.3c897e3.29105452_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/30/2001 9:03:46 AM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


Because the first {da} = {su'o da}, and (pace pc) the quantifier goes to
the prenex of the bridi it occurs in . The su'o can only bind variables within
its scope (= elements following it in the bridi it occurs in), so it cannot
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 special
rules, variable binding can never cross sentence boundaries.


As I have noted before, there is an ambiguity is "sentence" as applied to Lojban and And is here taking one very narrow -- and generally disastrous -- version (it makes it ahrd to make generalizations for example).  And also complicates this by a peculiar rule (which he says everyone uses though everyone else seems to violate it regulalry) about where quantifiers really go.  Ignore him or become unable to say very much in normal Lojban. --part1_149.3c897e3.29105452_boundary--