From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Nov 02 13:22:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 2 Nov 2001 21:22:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 27327 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2001 21:22:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Nov 2001 21:22:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Nov 2001 21:22:11 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fA2LMA521790 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:22:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:22:09 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope? In-Reply-To: <20011102160627.E879@twcny.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Rob Speer wrote: > 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 guess nobody was paying attention. But a cabal of non-users cannot eviscerate my da so easily. -- "You can not stop us. We have this anthrax. You die now. Are you afraid? Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great."