From cowan@xxxxx.xxxx.xxxx Thu Sep 2 13:33:08 1999 X-Digest-Num: 229 Message-ID: <44114.229.1257.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:33:08 -0400 (EDT) From: John Cowan Note that {da cmene mi .e do} is equivalent to > {da cmene mi .ije da cmene do}. What I wasn't sure about, but which I > think has already been considered and is well-known, is whether the scope > works like I think it does. That is, in {da cmene mi .ije da cmene do} am > I in fact asserting that we're dealing with the *same* da in both > sentences? I think so; I thought bound variables had a fairly long scope, > till they were rebound or at least until {ni'o} or something. If not, all > I'm asserting is that both you and I have names. It works the way you think, because sentence1 .ije sentence2 is in the scope of the (implicit) prenex that binds da. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin