Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e

From: Martin Bays <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:08:40 +0000 (UTC)

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Pierre Abbat wrote:

> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 21:20:09 -0500
> From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> To: [email-masked]
> 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,[; > > ^