From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jan 29 14:53:06 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 22:53:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 26632 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2003 22:53:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2003 22:53:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2003 22:53:01 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18e14n-0004iB-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:53:01 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18e14g-0004hn-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:52:54 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18e14Z-0004hc-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:52:47 -0800 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 14:52:47 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e Message-ID: <20030129225247.GI28812@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20030129175923.GC28812@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 3947 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:07:50PM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > > And it turns out that either everyone who has discussed this is > > wrong, or there is direct contradiction in the CLL! > > > > From Chapter 16, just after E10.5: > > > > By the rules of predicate logic, the ``ro'' quantifier on ``da'' has > > scope over both sentences. That is, once you've picked a value for > > ``da'' for the first sentence, it stays the same for both sentences. > > (The ``da'' continues with the same fixed value until a new > > paragraph or a new prenex resets the meaning.) > > > > Note that the above refers to an example which uses an .ije, but it > > *says* that any sentence carries a da. > > > > In S16.14: > > > > > > In general, the scope of a prenex that precedes a sentence extends > > to following sentences that are joined by ijeks (explained in > > Chapter 14) such as the ``.ije'' in Example 14.1. Theoretically, a > > bare ``.i'' terminates the scope of the prenex. Informally, however, > > variables may persist for a while even after an ``.i'', as if it > > were an ``.ije''. Prenexes that precede embedded bridi such as > > relative clauses and abstractions extend only to the end of the > > clause, as explained in Section 8. A prenex preceding ``tu'e ... > > tu'u'' long-scope brackets persists until the ``tu'u'', which may be > > many sentences or even paragraphs later. > > > > > > It would seem we have a contradiction, yes? > > > > Looks that way. Personally, I'd prefer the second. I'd also prefer, if > it's so far undecided, that DA in sub-bridi are assumed to be new - so > {da jinvi le du'u da cevni} is not the same as {da goi ko'a jinvi le > du'u ko'a cevni}. *WHY*? That seems like a *huge* pain; if you want a new variable, use a new variable! There's an infinite number, after all. > > The intent would be to clear just the assignment of da'o, which > > would be a new usage AFAIK. > > If we allowed that (I'm assuming you meant it clears whatever da'o is > attached to), I would certainly prefer it to bi'u. > > Note, however, that in both cases the poi does *not* appear to be > > binding to just the ny. > > It *isn't*? Why not? And what is it binding to, then? ro boi ny. (as opposed to just ny.). Probably doesn't batter. > >Not sure that's a problem in this case, though. What's the boi there > >for anyways? > > {ro ny.} counts as a number, for some reason. EBNF: "number = PA [PA ! > lerfu-word]...". No idea what use this was included for, though. Umm, makes sense to me. Why is that a problem? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi