From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Nov 03 19:37:46 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 4 Nov 2001 03:37:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 59125 invoked from network); 4 Nov 2001 03:37:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Nov 2001 03:37:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Nov 2001 03:37:46 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.87.20]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP
  id <20011104033744.SXSX5686.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 03:37:44 +0000
Reply-To: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope?
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 03:37:02 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMOEAKEPAA.a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20011102131841.D5796@digitalkingdom.org>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin

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.