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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:53:10 EST

In a message dated 11/2/2001 2:59:29 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> According to recent discussion (and this dismays me greatly) {da} loses
> its binding at the next bare {.i}!
> 
> I certainly don't remember that from the book - in fact, I seem to
> remember a special rule that {da}-variables are cleared at {ni'o}.
> 

Although Refgram 7.13 (162) says that a bound variable is stable until 
rebound, the details in 16.14 (410) say 1) that requantified variables refer 
so subparts of the referent of the original -- but for one occurrence only 
then return to the full previous reference and 2) that they are stable 
through sentences joined by ijeks, "theoretically a bare ".i" terminates the 
scope" with some further rules about shorter scopes and conventions about 
informally and formally lengthening the scope.

Y'all should pay attention -- especially if And and pc (and throw in xorxes) 
agree about ANYTHING.
As for {da'o} it is more for dereferencing things assigned by {goi} and the 
like, it just happens to take out {da} too.
As for the fuss about "I've always done it tother way," go ahead, it's 
approived by informla (though official) cnvention. Just don't get too much 
of a gap between occurrences so that we forget the connection. {da} will 
then pretty much automatically dereference.
We over here in TRUTH resent the "non-user" crack and laugh at the absurdity 
of us as a cabal.

{gumri} is an ancient word for "mushroom, fungus" not in the current list but 
attracting some fondness.