From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Sep 27 09:13:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 16:13:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 45824 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 16:11:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 16:11:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 16:11:31 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17uxko-0002vz-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:14:10 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17uxkD-0002vc-00; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:13:33 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17uxk9-0002vT-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:13:30 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g8RGHgGZ028668 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:17:42 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g8RGHguB028667 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:17:42 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:17:42 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Message-ID: <20020927161742.GB28382@allusion.net> References: <20020927061015.GB24912@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1624 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:34:49PM -0000, jjllambias2000 wrote: [...] > 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.) Now that I think about it, I actually think the book's example goes the other way. In mi klama le zarci reroi le ca djedi unfortunately we can assume there's only 1 ca djedi, and thus it doesn't say definitively. But if we assume the general left to right rule applies, and consider the same thing meaning "current days" instead of the "current day", it doesn't make sense that the re should change to re * number_of_days. The forethought isn't neccesary here anyway if you use a gadri like we were discussing, but I think in the general case tags probably scope just like anything else. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9lISlDrrilS51AZ8RAswdAJ0QOiks3/w+SrmwpsmjC4+VlbTarACfbbYT 2S2mzASlEKrNbesYyG2ZIQI= =/pOH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IiVenqGWf+H9Y6IX--