From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jan 29 15:59:35 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 23:59:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 20794 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2003 23:59:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2003 23:59:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2003 23:59:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18e27C-00056G-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:59:34 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18e276-00055v-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:59:28 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:59:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18e26y-00055m-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:59:20 -0800 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:59:20 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e Message-ID: <20030129235920.GN28812@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: 3949 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 11:53:04PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > Robin: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:08:40AM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > > > 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?) > > The rule applied in Academic Lojban is that DA is bound in the > localmost bridi it occurs in, and the binding lasts for as long as the > bridi does. For DA stay bound across sentence boundaries requires use > of tu'e. Unless you use .ije, which I didn't know about until today. > > Heh > > > > Many of us (and I think that includes everyone I've spoken to > > conversationally on IRC) ignore that as patently stupid, and use > > da'o and NIhO to clear da assignments > > If I understand you right as saying that DA stays bound across > sentence boundaries, then we have a dialectal split here, between > Organic Lojban and Academic Lojban. Possibly, but I might use .ije instead. > > Oh, wow > > > > 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 > > I may be missing something, but it seems to me that what is said about > 10.3-5 either conflicts with other more general logical principles of > Lojban, so would have to be investigated by the BF, or else is correct > for the particular examples discussed, but can't be extrapolated from. > The statement "The ``da'' continues with the same fixed value until a > new paragraph or a new prenex resets the meaning" reads like a > generalization, but cannot be correct (if Lojban is to be consistent), > so this is something the BF would have to rectify. Indeed. -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