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

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 10:14:06 -0500

At 04:06 PM 11/2/01 -0500, 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.

The primary purpose for da'o is to reset the ko'V and other anaphora that 
are assigned explicitly, and need therefore to be reassigned explicitly.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org