From pycyn@aol.com Fri Nov 02 13:53:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 2 Nov 2001 21:53:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 98077 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2001 21:53:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Nov 2001 21:53:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Nov 2001 21:53:13 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.45.e465dcc (3925) for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:53:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45.e465dcc.29146fc6@aol.com> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:53:10 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_45.e465dcc.29146fc6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_45.e465dcc.29146fc6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/2/2001 2:59:29 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com 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. --part1_45.e465dcc.29146fc6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/2/2001 2:59:29 PM Central Standard Time, rob@twcny.rr.com 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.
--part1_45.e465dcc.29146fc6_boundary--