Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 02:01:11 +0000

la djorden cusku di'e

> > See the section starting on pg. 407.
>
>I dunno where that is; I don't have a hardcopy (chapter+section is
>better). But you're right about the expansions since I misthunk
>the truth function.

Ch.16 section 12.

When using the hardcopy, page number is much better, because it is
difficult to find the chapters by number. The only place the number
appears is at the beginning of the chapter. It's unfortunate that
chapter numbers were not used in every page, or at least to label
the examples. We should take this into account for the coming books.

>So e has scope then, and it matters where you put the naku boundary
>with regard to it, etc.

Right. It matters where you put the naku boundary, quantifiers,
other connectives, and anything else that has scope.

>But I still don't see the relevance here
>to which convention is used for tag+sumti scoping. We still can
>interpret
> paroiku ko'a .e ko'e broda
>as
> ko'a paroi broda .ije ko'e paroi broda
>because floating tenses work differently than naku.

We can have special rules for every case if we like, but it is better
to have a uniform rule. Floating tenses work essentially like naku,
I don't see why you would say they work differently.

>And
> paroi ko'a .e ko'e broda
>as
> paroi ko'a broda .ije paroi ko'e broda

That's what I want, so we agree about this case. But for me this
is the exact same case as {paroi ro le re co'e cu broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com