From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Nov 02 14:40:33 2001
Return-Path: <xod@reva.sixgirls.org>
X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 2 Nov 2001 22:40:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 22579 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2001 22:40:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167)
  by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Nov 2001 22:40:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (64.152.7.13)
  by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Nov 2001 22:40:32 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
  by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fA2MeVb22805
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:40:32 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:40:31 -0500 (EST)
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] da, scope, usage
In-Reply-To: <20011102171927.B1527@twcny.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0111021738090.20499-100000@reva.sixgirls.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
From: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>
X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple

On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 04:53:10PM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Okay - I should have read this before sending my previous message.
>
> So the important part is that the part of the Book which mentions this
> makes allowances for the fact that people don't give a hoot about scope,
> so that {da} can retain its meaning, if not its pure logical content,
> past {.i}.
>
> Which brings me back to the original thing I asked: why use {da} when
> you don't plan to use it again, and only want to claim existence? Why
> not {zo'e} or some other KOhA?



ni'ibo zo ko'a na bapli le kamzasti




-- 
"You can not stop us. We have this anthrax. You die now. Are you afraid?
Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great."




