From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 28 11:56:15 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 18:56:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 42914 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 18:56:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 18:56:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.144) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 18:56:15 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 11:56:15 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.43 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:56:14 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 18:56:14 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2002 18:56:15.0399 (UTC) FILETIME=[B8A15370:01C26720] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.43] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la djorden cusku di'e > > Anyway, all this is to say that whatever rules apply to > > {ko'a e ko'e} should equally apply to {ro le re co'e}, since > > logically they are essentially the same thing. > >What chapter, please? Chapter 22. :) You won't find an answer to every question in the book. If you don't agree that {ko'a e ko'e} and {ro le re co'e} are essentially the same thing from the point of view of scopes of quantifiers and expansions, then it is probably pointless that we keep arguing about this, as our starting points would be too different. > > To make it more clear: > > > > paroiku mi klama la paris e la romas > > > > Expands to: > > > > paroiku zo'u ge mi klama la paris gi mi klama la romas > >No it doesn't. What rule are you claiming it expands to this under? Start from {paroiku zo'u mi klama la paris e la romas} if you prefer. The point is the same. >The only expansion rule I know of for logical connectives clearly says >that this becomes > mi klama paroiku la paris .ije mi klama paroiku la romas. What does the rule you know say for {pa le prenu cu klama la paris e la romas}? Does it expand to: (1) pa le prenu cu klama la paris ije pa le prenu cu klama la romas or to: (2) ko'a goi pa le prenu zo'u ko'a klama la paris ije ko'a klama la romas If your answer is (2), then you agree with me, and what I'm saying is that {paroi} should behave like {pa le prenu}. If your answer is (1), then we disagree at such a basic level that we will never reach an agreement about the original point we were discussing. > > In any case, whatever applies to > > {ko'a e ko'e} should apply as well to {ro le re co'e}. > >Again, what support do you have for this claim? Just common sense. I don't like special rules cropping up everywhere. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx