From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Sep 29 19:01:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 30 Sep 2002 02:01:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 10992 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 02:01:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2002 02:01:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.145) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 02:01:12 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 19:01:11 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.20 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 02:01:11 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: paroi ro mentu Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 02:01:11 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2002 02:01:11.0972 (UTC) FILETIME=[402F5E40:01C26825] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.20] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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