From rob@twcny.rr.com Fri Nov 02 14:03:31 2001
Return-Path: <rob@twcny.rr.com>
X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 2 Nov 2001 22:03:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 63586 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2001 22:03:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Nov 2001 22:03:30 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.177)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Nov 2001 22:03:30 -0000
Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74])
  by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id fA2M3TF21125
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:03:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com
  (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
  ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:03:05 -0500
Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
  id 15zmOF-0000PR-00
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 02 Nov 2001 17:02:15 -0500
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:02:15 -0500
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope?
Message-ID: <20011102170215.A1527@twcny.rr.com>
Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com
References: <b4.1132d2b.29146fc4@aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b4.1132d2b.29146fc4@aol.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i
X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com
From: Rob Speer <rob@twcny.rr.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 04:53:08PM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/2/2001 11:36:03 AM Central Standard Time, 
> rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:
> 
> 
> > Uhhh, doesn't da keep its binding until changed?
> > 
> > That's certainly how I use it.
> > 
> 
> Once more (with feeling): Officially, the scope of {da} (its binding) runs 
> out at the next unadorned {i} or similar break marker or at {da'o}, whichever 
> comes first.

If this is official, show us where it is in the Book and/or in Lojban usage.

Furthermore, if this is official, why was da'o created?

Is this as official as your "Record" on the new, improved, utterly
broken {ce'u}?

-- 
la rab.spir
noi sarji zo gumri


