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

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 03:37:02 -0000

Robin:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 03:57:31PM -0500, 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}!
> 
> That's patently ridiculous.
> 
> lu da cu mulna'u .i da zmadu li reno li'u
> 
> lu ta'a .i .uanai xu da pe de'u mulna'u li'u
> 
> lu .o'ocu'i mi puzi cusku le du'u go'i li'u
> 
> lu .uanaisai ku'i do puba co'a cusku lo cnino jufra li'u
> 
> This makes da utterly and totally pointless. I will not use it in this
> fashion.

Maybe {da} should work as you want it to, and according to the informal
rule pc subsequently restated and you were happy with. But a proper
well-behaved quantifier-bound variable is not pointless, and it is
good for us to have such a thing, even if it can't be da & we have to
have an experimental cmavo for it instead.

--And.