From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jan 29 02:12:04 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_1); 29 Jan 2003 10:12:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 57378 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2003 10:12:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2003 10:12:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2003 10:12:04 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18dpCN-0003sc-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:12:03 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dpB5-0003rp-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:10:43 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:10:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from vinland.freeshell.org ([207.202.214.139] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dp9M-0003rK-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 02:08:56 -0800 Received: (from mbays@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) id h0TA8eU08676; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:08:40 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:08:40 +0000 (UTC) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e In-Reply-To: <200301282120.09695.phma@webjockey.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3940 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mbays@freeshell.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Martin Bays From: Martin Bays Reply-To: mbays@freeshell.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Pierre Abbat wrote: > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:20:09 -0500 > From: Pierre Abbat > Reply-To: lojban-list@lojban.org > To: lojban-list@lojban.org > Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e > > On Tuesday 28 January 2003 11:48, Martin Bays wrote: > > No, that's not what I meant. I get all that stuff. Sorry, I was far from > > clear (damned rarbau thinking). What I meant was that in {lu'i .abu boi xi > > .ibu poi .ibu cmima tau .ibu}, the poi phrase isn't (I think) binding to > > the .ibu, which is just a lerfu string as part of the subscript, and if I > > understand my EBNF right NOI can only bind to a sumti. The entire {.abu > > boi xi .ibu} is acting as a sumti here, so the poi relates to that. And > > the poi phrase gives a condition on .ibu, and hence on a *part of the > > description* of ke'a, rather than ke'a itself. > > > > So what I'm asking is - is this valid? Does it have the obvious meaning? > > Similarly, is {lo broda be da ku poi da brode} legit? Would anything > > change if ko'a or .ibu replaced da? How about if ko'a had been used > > before, and still had scope, or if a recent sumti had a description > > beginning with an .ibu? > > It is valid, and does mean what you mean it to mean. There's nothing wrong > with rarbau thinking if you think in the right rarbau - in this case, lo > cabna xelso .e lo xebro. Both have a word ("pou" fa'u "asher") which > corresponds to {poi} or {noi}, a relative conjunction, and both these words > originally meant "where". Excellent. Thanks. > > > Also, and relatedly, is {ro boi .ibu poi kacna'u zo'u .ibu broda} > > quantifying over .ibu, or is the prenex just giving a subject restricting > > whatever .ibu already refers to to natural numbers? > > It is quantifying over .ibu. See chapter 16, verse 4. > Yes, but the examples there (as far as I can see) all apply to DA. And the scope of a DA cmavo, as the CLL says I forget where, is very short - and in particular an {.i} (as opposed to an ijek/ijoik) cancels all DA assignments - and since you can only have a prenex at the start of a statement, not after an ijek/ijoik, your prenexed DA will never have a previous assignment (except what about sub-bridi, say in a du'u? Can DA assignments descend?). But (anyway), if you use .ibu in a prenex, or indeed ko'a, it might well have a previous assignment still in scope. So how can you be sure your prenex is re-assigning? Actually, would bi'u work? lo ninmu goi ny. cadzu .i ro boi ny. bi'u poi kacna'u zo'u ny kacna'u ji ninmu --- #^t'm::>#shs>:#,_$1+9j9"^>h>" < v :>8*0\j" o'u" v" e'i" v".neta"^q> ;z,[; > > ^