Subject: Re: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope?

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:06:27 -0500

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 03:59:53PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Rob Speer wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 09:26:08AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > Uhhh, doesn't da keep its binding until changed?
> >
> > According to recent discussion (and this dismays me greatly) {da} loses
> > its binding at the next bare {.i}!
> 
> 
> If that were the case there would hardly be a need for da'o.

Precisely. Hence I was wondering why there wasn't more of an outcry when
(against all probability) PC and And both agreed about that.

-- 
.i da poi la rab.spir
.i da sarji zo gumri