From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 07:35:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 14:34:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 43689 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 14:34:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 14:34:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.87) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 14:34:59 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.159] by n30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 14:34:51 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:34:49 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20020927061015.GB24912@allusion.net> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 942 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000" X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la djorden cusku di'e > (particularly the > subset for which the planet hasn't yet been engulfed in its sun's > supernova or however else planets cease to be, and after which it > has formed). So I suggest {paroi le'e mentu}. pe'ipei Yes, I guess you're right. That would neatly solve the scope issue too, though I'm becomeing more convinced that the sumti always must have scope over the tag: {ze'a ro mentu} can never be the same ze'a for each minute. {rere'u ro djedi} can never be the same second time for every day. {ciroi ro masti} can never be the same three times every month. So, I would say that the tag always falls within the scope of the sumti's quantifier. (Unless someone comes up with interesting cases where the opposite interpretation makes sense.) > (btw; on a tangent: what the hell does x3 and x4 of plini mean? lojbab knows! > Has anyone ever used them in a sentence?) Of course not! :) mu'o mi'e xorxes