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

From: Martin Bays <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:49:25 +0000 (UTC)

Thank you muchly for this! You've cleared up a lot of fuzziness in my
understanding. Do you mind if I just ask you to check my understanding of
one passage, though? -

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> At 02:00 AM 1/30/03 +0000, Martin Bays wrote:
[...]
> >And also - I'm assuming that plain [sumbasti] is equivalent to su'o pa
> >[sumbasti]. If not, what difference does putting a quantifier before the
> >[sumbasti] make?
>
> For DA that is correct. Since lerfu/KOhA are unbound, and presumed
> already-defined, I think they have implicit quantifier "ro" I guess that
> you COULD use a lerfu as a bound variable by *explicitly* quantifying it in
> a prenex.
>

So are you saying that {.ibu poi broda zo'u} parallels {ro da poi broda
zo'u}, and {su'o .ibu poi broda zo'u} parallels {da poi broda zo'u}, and
that in both cases previous assignment of .ibu is overridden, at least for
the scope of the prenex (following the usual DA rules)? And just for
completeness - does it then, after the scope of the prenex has finished,
revert back to its pre-prenex assignment, or become unset?

If I *have* understood you right here, firstly - good, that makes sense
and should be usable, and secondly - any objections if I start a Wiki page
on all this? I feel it's the kind of thing which should be explicitly
documented somewhere.

Thank you!

---
#^t'm::>#shs>:#,_$1+9j9"^>h>" < v
:>8*0\j" o'u" v" e'i" v".neta"^q>
;z,[; > > ^